New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-05-24

=, ,,x, ,,.,s obtained on the single Sroun''
rocccnizr1 Nv the Church as proper c'u''
divorce. N. ruIlcr
1.ndor This canon 1t would seem that Mr' "''.
had no right to marry again. But 'h'i' w..
onporcatly some facts not disclosed co'''.', ,.,,,
his divorce which he believed SAou'u ~ ,",n,,.
into account. What they are does ho' =,
onncar. but he declares. and bis deciai",'O''
NOT denied. that he obtained his divorce -
advice. in the first instance, Of Bishop 40
romeo his own Bishop. and BishoP CA.A
Rhode Island In the second place H''
Hugh Miller Thompson. OF MISSISSIPPI ".
him letter telling him that he had tue "a ,,
and the Christian right TO marry. III ''ic w.t., 49,.
place. Bishop Lawrence. while ho' ee'
way to otiiciate himself wrote to Bshop mon'F
son. authorizing him 10 ofliciate Anu D''"0P
Thompson did actually offciate M the Hill
which took place in Trinity Church boS'on' WIN
the consent of its rector. In view u 'V'e
focts" said MI Fuller IN his protest i plo''',
against the righteousness OF OclhE s"oJ00'''
TO any condemnation or discipline Wh"lH'
"inf|irted on me at the hands OF the onu' NJ
(which. in the person Of her Bishops mas i'Vt
"onlv advised my preliminary course plt a!So,
lin the person of one Of her Bishops mas aSSuic"
me Of my Christian and canonlcal rlsht ~
.marry and even advised me to 40 So anu
affirmed that the Church would hHVc no diSc'-
milne for me if | should do SO. ana hhai!' ~
the same Bishop. has solcmnized my marriage
":n accordance with her own laws.
In spitc Of this protest. however. the court
determined that ii could not consider an! al
irred facts outside the record OF the evil court
trial for divorce Indeed. one OF the couil'S III
the Indictment against Mr. Fuller was that ne
made a charge of adultery against his MIST WIG
in q secret communication to Bishop thompson
thus leading the Bishop to take the course lie
,fterylrd took In other words. on an eN parte
statement the Bishop Of Mississippi was held by
Mr. Fuller TO have made judicial decision III
n case that had already been adJudcated py
civil court and on the strength or that uecisioh
he decided that he had right to contract sec
ond marriage though by the decision OF the civil
court he could not do so. The court trying MT
FulIer took the position and 1t seems TO us right
H. that there was nothing before 1t but the rec
ord of the divorce trial. and on that record IL
was forced TO adiudce Mr.. Fuller guilty.
There are several obvious morals in this I'M
savory case 1t was a mistake. to say the least,
for Mfr Fuller as an Episcopal clergyman. 10
contract a second marriage unless he was able
70 prove legally that he procured divorce Tor
the cause recognized by the Church. HIS WINS
prring into the ears of crcdulouS cccleslastcs
n version OF the case that for some reason he dld
not care to submit 10 civil court OF record can
not be defended In the forum OF conscience
on the other hand. the course Of Bishops Law
renee and Thompson Is open 10 severe criticism
They are the chief shepherds Of a body when
claims through their order. to be the authori-
iative teacher and Interpreter OF the truth Nhlt
IS the truth as to marriage and divorce when
they have established In this case: Have they
not rather by their letters and official action,
plunged tie whole question in doubt and unccr'
tainty? or what value is Church canon when
Rishops are unable 10 decide what Il means, and
advise a clergy man to do that which il says he
shall not do; These are some of the questions
that Ep!~copallans will ask when they read the
remarkable record Of this case. And they VIII
ind no answer to them that will tend ~ in
crease their belief in Episcopal incrrancy.