Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-11-29

law of the church declares that whenever
the division of diocese into two dioceses
Shall be ratified by the general convention,
each of the two dioceseS shall he subject to
the constitution and canons OF the diocese
SO divided etc. 1t seems to me too clear
for dispute that the late general convention
having ratified the action of the diocesan
convention, the diocese of Maryland, as it
existed prior to its conventions action no
longer exists. 1t is no longer a one and I'M
divided diocese, but two dioceses, and one
cannot be made two without being divided
How can We on next Wednesday hold in
Washington a convention of the present
undivided diocese when 1t has been called
as the primary convention of the new do
cese? The new diocese has been created
with its metes and bounds. A law-making
Eody is to be organized for the diocese.
How can you have a convention for do
cese II you have not first diocese? A bsh-
op Is to be elected for the diocese. There
must, therefore, be pre-existing diocese.
Il am ready and willing to be corrected
il l am wrong / have been only seeking
what is lawful and right"
To the Editor of The Evening Star:
Two CIersymen's Views.
In the communication which appeared in
your columns signed by Messrs. J. B.
Perry, Charles Z. Buck and Alfred Hard
ing there is reflected an opinion which can
not be too soon corrected.
1t is there intimated that the advocates
of the constitutional changes proposed in
tend to force them through" in one con-
vention by bare majority. In face of the
determined opposition of their brethren.
AS signers of the call for a conference
upon this subject next Tuesday evening,
and as acquainted, we think, with the pur-
poses of its promoters, we desire to say
that We are confident no such intention ex-
lists, or has existed.
We believe that the only purpose sought
is full and fair discussion Of the subject.
and that the friends of these changes would
be unwilling they should be adopted finally
by the primary convention unless 1t should
be done by a very large majority.
But we desire, at the same time, to ask, in
all kindness, whether those who oppose
them are justified in declaring that il the
convention in its wisdom. should decide
to change the constitution at the primary
convention such action would be illegal
and void.
.'Such action" has the sanction Of repeat
ed precedent. 1t is supported by the high
est legal authority. 1t is approved by some
of our oldest and ablest bishops. If taken
by the convention of the new diocese, which
is the sole judge in this case of the mean
ing of the constitution. and from whose de-
cision there is no appeal, 1t would undoubt-
edly stand. Nor would the sentiment of the
church for a moment sustain an indirect at
tempt to nullify the action of the diocese.
Is 1t then just to charge those who ad-
vocate such acti3n' with an intention to
violate the constitution? Have they not as
good a right to their view of the meaning
of the constitution as those who differ
from them? Can the honesty OF their
opinion however erroneous it may be) be
for moment called in question? And
will II be claimed that their motives are
less pure or high than their brethren who
are of different mino?
These are not new proposals. They have
been earnestly advocated for years. when
there was no Episcopal election imminent.
They are advocated now, not in the interest
of any party, or any candidate but from the
highest principles, and for the best interests
of the diocese. and by no means in a factious
spirit. ~ -
More than this. We believe the promoters
of these charges will meet their brethren
who differ from them in fraternal and con-
ciliatory spirit, prepared sooner to waive
what they believe a constitutional right than
to even seem to foster strife and bitterness.
THOS. G. ADDISON.
ALBERT r. STUART.