The San Francisco call., 1895-10-10
Report of the Bishops Borne
Down by a Mass of
Amendments.
OPPOSED TO LIFE TENURE
Delegates Adopt a Clause Giving
Power to Remove the Head
of the Church.

For hour after hour the debate had been
progressing on the report from the Bish-
OPS designating by the title of "primate'
the one who some day in the dim and dis
tant future might by virtue of seniority be
the head of the church. but amendment
after amendment had been piled upon
each other and then dovetailed into each
other, and then the whole mass kneaded
into big ball upon which was planted a
substitute that covered anything and
everything that had gone before, until the
parIiamentarians themselves were bewil-
dered and confusion became confounded.
Tomorrow morning vigorous effort will
be made to agree with the report of the
Bishops and clear the matter from the cal
endar.
The only other important development
of the day was the reafirmation by the
house of the title "Bishop Coadjutor" as
substitute for Assistant Bishop" and
the receipt of message from the House of
Bishops approving the section OF article
four of the revision providing for the
creation of five provinces in this country,
each province to be presided over by an
Archbishop" The provision of the re-
vision is: ''The Bishops of each province
shall arrange one of their number to be
primate of the province" The message
will come up for consideration later.
1t is said tonight that the Bishops have
gone through seven articles Of the consti-
tuition while the house is still on the third
section of the first.
rhe early proceedings of the day were
frightened by a breezy contest for the
location of the next convention. DR.. w.
A. Roberts spoke for Louisville, DR.. Law
renee and Edward L. Davis made a plea
for Boston, DR.. E. B. Spalding ecquently
pictured the advantages of San Francisco,
and Rev. John Percival presented New
Orleans, the metropolitan city of the South.
This latter nomination was promptly
voted down and the prize was apparently
going to Boston, when Rev. a. w. Knight
of Atlanta electrified his hearers with a
brilliant presentation of that city, enlarg-
ing upon incidents in its history during
the past thirty years, and insisted that the
influence of the church was needed in At
lanta more than in any other city that mad
been named. When vote was taken it
was apparent from the start that Mr..
knight had snatched victory from the ap-
parently successful Boston at the eleventh
hour and when division was called for
so few of the delegates arose in opposition
that the majority was not counted.
Without debate, the house reafirmed its
approval Of the message from the Bishops
providing for Bishop Coadiutors. The
clerical vote was 36 ayes, IL noes, 6 6divided !;
lay vote % ayes, 10 noes, divided.
Then the much debated "Primate"
loomed up again. Most of the speakers
had been heard on previous days and few
new faces were seen or voices heard on the
rostrum.
DR.. Huntington of New York, who
wanted to make the office a matter OF
seniority, said, amid laughter, that they
did not want the Primate to be too active,
for they were not desirous of being too
much governed.
Rev. DR.. McKim made the point that
one of the younger Bishops might be the
senior in point of conservation. AS the
debate proceeded after the recess consid-
cradle feeling was manifested by some oil
the speakers. DR.. Jewell OF Milwaukee
was in favor of Primate in the election
by the church. DR.. Morrison of Albany
argued that the office of Primate, or Pre-
siding Bishop, was not created for the pur-
pose of comforting honor upon any par
ticular individual. The American manner
of settling a question of this kind was by
election, and he did not see why it should
not pertain in the House of Bishops a;
we'll as in this house. Rev. Patrick G.
| Robert of Missouri also favored the cleo
| tive system. DR.. Blanchard of Pennsyl.
van1a raised his voice in warning against
| the evils which might attend the elective
! system if introduced into the House oil
Bishops.
| DR.. Carmichael of Virginia resented q
! previous speakers imputation that the
House of Bishops would be glad to have
the House of Deputies director in favor oi
the elective series. DR.. Jewell defended
himself against the implied accusation
! that he had cast a slur upon the House
of Bishops in assuming that they would
be pleased if the House of Deputies should
favor the elective plan. 4.
! A vote was taken upon the substitute o1
DR.. Weber of Fond du Lac in which he
moved the adoption OF the section as pre-.
sented in the report OF the joint committee
with the word ''Primate'' substituted fol
| 'Primps." This was lost by large ma.
! jority.
The question then fell upon DR.. Hunt
! ington's amendment to MIR. Parker's
amendment to article 8, as presented in
the message from the House of Bishops
This section, as adopted by the House o1
Bishops, provides that the senior Bishop
shall be presiding officer, to be known a,
Primate, and hold office for life. Mr.
Parker's amendment provides for the
election by majority of those entitled to
vote in the House of Bishops of a sue.
cessor TO the Primate should he resign OF
be removed, and DR.. Huntington's amend
ment provides that the successor in such g
contingency shall be the next Bishop in
order of seniority.
Rev Dr.. Rhodes of Southern Ohio
moved the adoption of substitute, which
| provides that the removal of Primate
from office should be by vote of ma.
| iority of those entitled to vote in the
House of Bishops.
Mr.. Nash of North Carolina moved to
strike out the words "For canonical
causes" in DR.. Huntington's amendment
on the ground that there could be nc