Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-10-11

new term, b.sbop-coadjutor, in the place Of
assistant b'shop. uas q 1ood 90 th~"~e -
Bradford Brice of New Mexico protested
that seyen-eighths of the members of the
Primus or Primate.
When the discussion about the title of
the bishop who is now called the presiding
bishop came up, the committee had brought
In the word primus. A deputy from Vir-
ginia NorfolhD said 1t would never do The
American people were humorous people,
and the chief bishop would be known as
uncle Prfmus all over the United States
The Rev. DR.. Huntington made a telling
speech, saying archbishop was a title too
small for the chief bishop of the whole
church in the United States; that he hoped
the day was coming when, all churches
united, there would be an archbishop in
every state and primate over all the
states. He said there was no archbishop
of an empire, and there was no grander
empire than these United States. The
title presiding bishop was dropped by a
vote Of 100 to 1874.
Notes of the Convention.
The house of deputies is quite patient,
and listens closely. but Il w. 40, o,.,.
repetition, and when it gets ready to vot'
votes with decided effect.
The only manifest sign of d;sapproval
except some noes. as yet heard on the
floor, was the sound of slight Kissing wher
Rev. DR.. Carmichael of Virginia, in speak
ing of how We had grown fond of English
titles. said. 'As our rich girls look out for
titled men on the other side"
The galleries have been better filled since
the ladies came back from their meeting
in ST. Paul
Rev. J. S. B. Hodges is now in his seat.
and so Is the Rev. Carl Grammer, from
Virginia
A mistake was made in the name of Mr.,
Mason, lay deputy from Maryland 1t is
not w. P:nckney, but John I.
The Alaska Question.
The board of missions Of the Episcopal
Church last evening debated resolution Of
fered by Bishop Gilbert of Minnesota which
requested the house of bishops to Immediate
ly elect bishop of Alaska.
The debate was quite sensational. Bishop
Rulison of central Pennsylvania answered
some of the charges that have been made
against Alaska and the missions. He plead
ed for a missionary bishop for Alaska. and
he ''hoped to God the Methodists and Pres
byterians would occupy the field If his
church did not wake up
Bishop Nicely Of Maine vigorously oppos-
ed what he called the spending of money for
the petty work in Alaska. He intended &c
see the missionary funds more equally dis
tributed. He declared that the people there
We're inaccessible to missionaries. He used
some choice sarcasm in referring to Alaska!
statistics. and figured that there was some
sort of religious institution in Alaska
already for seventy people, and the Ep,sco-
palianS would have hard work finding a
place 10 Put their feet. Referring to Mis-
sionary Chapman. whom they proposed to
make bishop. he said he would not accept
him as missionary for Aroostock county,
Maine. He could not talk the language afte.
being there seven years.
Bishop futile of Missouri defended the
proposition for bishop, and Bishop Whip
pie of Minnesota observed that it was the
first time in the history of the church
that a faithful missionary had been
so harshly criticised. Bishop Seymour
and others made vigorous replies
TO the bishop from Maine, and Bishop
Paret and others defend I'd him and said he
deserved the thanks of the board for intro
ducing new era in missionary discussions.
The matter will come up again today.