Evening star., 1895-05-30

When the session was opened for business
Rev. Dr. Gran mer of Baltimore called for
the reading of DR.. McKim's resolution as
amended by Mr.. Packard, which proposed
that the new diocese should consist of the
District Of Columbia without the lower
counties of Maryland. DR.. Grammer ar
gued that the amendment introduced the
question in an entirely new form, and
would greatly entangle and complicate the
consideration Of the whole matter. The
whole idea Of a division was based upon
geographical lines, as outlined in DIR. Nc
ktm's resolution. The action of the con-
ventton of last year was all in favor of
new diocese which would include a portion
of Maryland, and upward of $6O,0OO had
been raised in this city with that under
standing. In his opinion, the convention
would have no Justification, moral or legal,
In going back upon the plan as outlined
year ago, and thoroughly canvassed since
then. and taking up a plan of dividing up
the diocese in an altogether different man
ner. To simply take out Washington from
the diocese Of Maryland would not raise
sufhcient amount of cares from the shoul-
ders of the bishop of Maryland. and would
not equitably apportion the labors between
the two bishops. With all the conditions
in favor Of division as outlined in DR.. Nc
Kim's resolution. he thought it preposter-
GUS to take up the consideration Of an en-
tirely new basis of division or to let the
question of an apportionment of the funds
enter into the consideration at ALL The
suggestion for division had emanated
originally from Bishop Paret, who Is the
closest observer of the needs of the diocese.
There are said to be more Episcopalians in
the city of Washington in proportion to
the population than in any other city of
the United States. So all circumstances
seemed to point to division, and to a di-
vision which should include the District of
Columbia and four counties of Maryland.
The diocese of Maryland would still be large
enough and strong enough while it takes
no prophet to see that in years to come
Washington would be one of the great
nj ha in inf of
f1uence, as well as in size and political in
fluence.
DR.. Williams also spoke against Mr..
Packards amendment. and the suggestion
to limit the diocese of Washington to the
District of Columbia.
TO have a bishop for sixteen parishes
would be like having a major general to
command company. 1t would cut the
diocese off from all missionary work. and
that work is often the secret of spiritual
life and growth. But give it the four coun-
ties of Maryland. and it would have an
ample territory, and the bishop would have
enough to do.
DIR. Elliotts Summary.
Rev. DR.. John H. Elliott, rector of the
Church of the Ascension, followed in the
same line of argument. A division on the
basis suggested by Mr.. Packard would not
be in accord with what the bishop had laid
down as prerequisite to his consent-an
equitable division Of the labors and respon-
sibilities. Maryland should be more con-
sistent than that. No new arguments had
been raised against division on the old lines
that were not raised last year. No reason
for change had been adduced, for it was
a change. On the other hand, some diff
culties had been cleared away. The finan-
cial problem had been solved in this city,
while the receipt of a large bequest by the
convention of Maryland seemed a provi-
Dental provision for its needs.
In support of his position, DR.. Elliott read
committee division
made to the convention of 1859 in favor of
making diocese of Washington, which, 1t
said, would be second to none in Importance
and influence.
Rev. Mr.. Can't of Baltimore argued
against division, saying that one of the
strongest reasons for not being willing to
let Washington go was the noble zeal and
the loyalty to the church evinced by the
members of the proposed diocese of Wash
ington. There were new conditions. he
said. Last year Washington. had objected
the ground that they would be a burden
heavier than she could bear. There had
been wonderful change of feeling for
now Washington showed surprising inter-
est In them, presumably because she real
lied that without them diocesan consent
could not be secured for separation.
Criticising Washington.
Mr.. CAN'T made a very eloquent speech
and rather went for Washington for the
lack OF interest the church had shown
here in the work among colored people,
He expressed the opinion that Washing
ton had no more real interest in the low
er- counties of Maryland than it has in
parishes on the other side of the Rockies.
Rev. Mr.. Johnston of Laurel Nd. made
bright and witty speech in favor of di-
vision. He was the first from any of the
counties in question to speak and he took
exception to Mr.. CAN'T of Baltimore pre-
suming to express the sentiment of the
lower parishes. He himself was of the
hat inS in foHy
of division. He took Mr.. CAN'T to task
for saying that year ago Washington OBJ
jected to pairing off with the Maryland
counties. The only objection was that if
Howard, Calvert and Anne Arundel coun-
ties were also added the burden would be
unduly heavy.
Rev. Mr.. London of Upper Marlboro fol-
lowed in favor of division. He said that
it was an old saying that one has to go
away from home to hear the news. The
first he had ever heard of the southern
counties being in revolt was on the floor
of this convention. 1t was curious. too.
that all this news should come from Bal
timoreans and that they had never heard
of it in the southern counties. He repudi-
ated all that Mr.. Can't had said last even
ing.
DIR. Robert Atkinson of Baltimore argued
against the amendment, which he char
acterized as intended not to amend, but to
destroy.
DIR. McKim took the ground that If divi-
sion were made on any other lines than
those originally laid down, not one dollar
of the $54, 600 raised for an episcopal fund
could be kept. He knew Maryland as well
as anyone in the house and he took excep-
ton to what Mr.. CAN'T had tried to bring
forward as the sentiment of the counties.
Mr.. Charles Albert opposed division in a
brief speech, partially on the ground that
Baltimore had shown its aversion to the
plan by refusing to raise an episcopal
fund.
Mr.. Hays Remarks.
Mr.. E. B. Hay, lay delegate from this
city, spoke in favor Of division on the orig
inal lines, and incidentally defended Wash
ington from the charge that 1t is dereict in
its duty toward the colored people. He also
answered some of Mr.. Gantt's arguments,
although, he said, the case was very much
like that Of the Kansas organist, who tack
ed up the sign: Don't shoot the organist
He is doing the best he can"
Further on, referring to some more of
the arguments brought forward by the del
egate from Baltimore, Mr.. Hay said he was
reminded Of the criticism once passed upon
a western orator: He is like a 1ow-pres-
sure steamboat on the Mississippi river. A
very nice boat, but every time it blows it's
whistle it's machinery stops"
There were one or two such hits as this
in Mr.. Hays speech, but altogether 1t was
one of the ablest addresses of the evening.
The Vote.