The times., 1898-10-12

called resulting in the defeat of the mi
nority report by vote OF 1G4 to 1.
Mr.. Brown of California, offered an
amendment to strike out of article seven
the words ''by the general convention.
He declared that these words were un-
necessary and might at some future time
lead to great difficulty.
DIR. Richnrds's Views
Rev. DR.. Richards, of Rhode Island
said that he did not think the house was
unanimously in favor of provinces. He
offered objection to the word may" IN
article seven, declaring that when a dio-
cese protested against being organized il
to provinces, the word may would be
very much like a shall" Thus more
power would be given the general con-
yention, and consequently taken away
from the dioceses, he declared. He off r.
ed as a substitute cannon 6, OF the
digest
Mr.. Brown moved TO lay the substitute
upon the table and this motion prevailed.
Rev. Mr.. Welior, of Fond du Lac, object
ed to the amendment on the ground that
Il mere majority vote in any diocese
would prevent a province being formed.
The minority in "A diocese has some rights,
he said and to be brought into a prov
He hoped the amendment would not pre-
vail.
Opposed to 1t.
Rev. DR.. Nelson was opposed to a
provincial system. an1 in referring to the
argument of Dr. Weller. he said it seem
ed to him that unless the amendment
prevailed the article would put in
to operation a piece Of church ma
chinery that would operate to put the
majority into subsection to the minority.
Rev. DR.. Parks remarked that he was
glad the full meaning of the article was
coming to light. 1t has been said, he
continued that it is to make possible
courts of appeal. to which he objected
seriously. Individualism was desirable,
/ both in dioceses and in the church.
Rev Dr. Hoffman, of New York, was
! of the opinion that the amendment
| adopted to confine the dioceses to State
lines ought to be reconsidered If the
! pending amendment prevailed. as he said
it would make the organization of prov
/ inces practically Impossible.
! He gave an illustration by saying that
| If one diocese in a State failed to give its
consent to be a part of a province. the
clause which had just been adopted pro-
viding that no province shall be sc
bounded as to contain only fractional
/
| erection of a province in that State en-
tirely.
DIR. Egar's Ire Was Up.
Rev. DR.. Fulton at this iuncture took
the floor and in his first sentence he
aroused the ire of the Rev Dr. Egar and
a lively colloquy ensued resulting in DR.
Egar being called to order by the chair
| DR.. Fulton arose to support the amend.
ment and said he did so because it was
! not mandatory, as he considered the mi
/ nOrity report to be. THAT is not So
interjected DR.. Egar in a ruffled manner
The chair Immediately warned DR. Egal
! that he must address himself to the chair
( and that il was a violation of the rules
I of the house to interrupt speakers
DIR. Fulton Appeals.
DR. Fulton then appealed to the chail
to know if it would be in order for hin
TO answer DIR. Egar. On being informec
that he could he read from the minority
report, DR.. Egar coming forward Will
the report to read it himself DR. Fultol
merely read the first line, which said, III
every state conventions shall be held.
This, claimed DR.. Fulton, was manda
tory
Rev. DR.. Hoffman again objected Iha
If the present amendment was adopted
in connection with the previous one, tn
article would be entirely worthless.
a motion was made to recommit III
article TO the committee, which wa
unanimously agreed to.
Several messages from the House o
Bishops We're read and referred to tn
appropriate committees.
Concurrence was made in the reques
for a conference committee asked for b.
the House of Bishops on articles and
of the constitution, to which the Hous
of Bishops had failed TO agree.
The typographical errors in the boo
of common prayer were acted on in ac
cordance with the request of the Hous
of Bishops.
The house then adjourned until
o'clock today.