The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-10-06
DEPUTIES NOT AGREED.
Secret Sessions of the Upper
House Met With Some
Opposition.
REVISING THE CONSTITUTION.
1t Is Apparent That the Changes
Cannot Be Completed This
Session.

MINNEAPOLIS, MINI, Oct 5.-For q
a short sixty minutes to-day there was a
brilliant forensic display between those
members of the lower house of the Episco-
pal convention who are opposed to the re-
linquishment of any of its prerogative and
the element that holds that the fathers Of
the church are entitled to little more lee
way and latitude than was given them a
century ago. It was the same story of the
first clause of the first paragraph of the
new constitution, and large number of
delegates are fighting to replace the stipu-
lation in the old constitution preventing
the Bishops from pigeon-holing legisla-
tion coming up from below.
1t was not a threshing of old straw, how
ever. for amendment after amendment
was presented until the venerable Judge
Wilder of this State capped the climax by
submitting resolution to the following
audacious effect:
"That 50 long as the House of Bishops
shall hold its legislative sessions with
closed doors the House of Bishops shall
signify to the House of Deputies their ap-
probation or disapprobation, the latter
with objections in writing, in three days
after the proposed act shall be reported to
Guem LOT concurrence
This was the pending issue when the
committee rose. The first section in ques-
ton has been under debate for an entire
day and two portions of days and seems to
be no nearer final vote than when il was
originally presented on Wednesday, To
still further complicate matters the House
of Bishops has entered upon a revision of
the new constitution and canons on its
own account. The result will be that about
the time the revised revision goes up to the
Bishops from the deputies another revised
revision will come to the deputies from
the Bishops. Just where the prospective
changes will land the two houses neither
Bishops nor deputies seem to know.
The one thing apparent is that neither
house can get through the volume in the
two weeks of life that remain to the con-
vention, and there seems to be no other
alternative than, after the wasting of much
valuable time, the postponement of the is
sue to the convention of 1898. This will
probably be held in Louisville.
Just as soon as the convention had ap-
proved the creation of new dioceses in
California, Maryland and Kentucky and
the magnificent copy of the revised prayer
book, approved at the last convention, had
been presented, the delegates took up the
constitutional pamphlet and settled back
in their seats to see what the day would
bring forth. Rev. ]. B. Harrison of Spring.
field moved an amendment providing that
each house should notify the other when
there was any legislation to which they
could not agree. This, he said, would put
the two houses on an equality of privilege.
Judge Wilder, in submitting his resolu-
ton, said that SO long as the Bishops held
their sessions with closed doors there was
no reason why special prerogatlve should
be granted to them. The deputies met
with every thing wide open; nobody knew
what the Bishops were doing unless they
chose to make it public themselves. The
result was that the deputies were placed at
great disadvantage, and the insertion of
the old-time clause was the only safeguard
upon which they could make stand
Delegate Fairbanks of Florida, who has
already received the designation of the
Holman" of the body insisted in a vigor-
Gus speech thatit was decidedly unbecom-.
ing for them to attempt to hamper the
Bishops. They should have confidence
that the fathers of the church would do
their work as honestly and as conscien-
tiousIy as the deputies. He earnestly pro-
tested against politics being brought into
this matter.
Rev. John S. Lindsay of Massachusetts,
admitted that some people, and altogether
too many, thought there were more con-
cessions. in the new constitution than the
Bishops were entitled to. This was a ques-
ton that seriously affected their dignity.
1t was a threat that possibly the Bishops
might get frightened and approve legisla-
ton without proper consideration. In
stirring tones he appealed to his hearers
to manifest their confidence in the Bishops
by voting down all the amendments.
DR.. Elliott of Maryland again brought