The evening times., 1898-10-08

document and then ask the convention TO
accept it
cal action.
His greatest objection, he said. was that
three weeks was entirely inadequate; that
il would take fully six months TO go over
the matter. There were other questions
of far more vital Importance. One change
in three years was enough to be made in
the constitution.
Il must respect the committee, said
DR.. McKim. II must respect this body,
but ] must respect my conscience. The
eyes OF the world are face TO face with
an expanded nation; our duty is to awake
these living questions of the day. Al
ready the Presbyterians have mapped out
their work for Porto Rico and shall We
not do the same? Or shall We take Up
the time in going over our constitution?
The Gospel must be spread over The
whole world, and We must consider these
living issues"
Rev DR. Fulton then took the floor. He
said there were two houses in this con-
vention, and in his opinion there was alb
solute equality of these house. THIS
house would commit constitutional suicide
he said, to submit TO the orders OF tie
house of bishops. He, however. said that
the language of the message would indi-
cate no intention on their part TO control
the action of this house.
Rev DR.. McKim said that his motives
had been misinterpreted. as he had no in
tention to be I'm the least discDurteous TO
the house of bishops.
Rev. DIR. FOude's Resolution
Rev. Dr. Foude. of Minnesota, present
ed a resolution authorizing the appoint
ment of a joint committee to consider
technical difficulties.
This resolution was declared out or
order by the chairman, and the resolution
of DIR. Mchim to postpone further con-
sideration of the constitution indefinitely
was then voted on, SO voting in the ain
NATIVE and 242 in the negative. The res
olution was lost Rev. DR.. Dix then
urged that it was desirable 10 get
vote as soon as possible on the section
under discussion.
He said that he was afraid the efforts
and aim Of The committee had been sad
ly misunderstood. 1t had not been its
intention 10 present anything novel or
strange When message 81 of the House
of Bishops was reached by the committee
# recommended the change which had
been made in reference TO transferring
the canon relating to the conservation Of
bishops to the constitution.
Dr. Dix suggested that the confirmation
of a bishop be left 10 the discretion Of the
Two HOUSES, anu lLldl II br itLA 10 AAAc
committees al interim representa- lives
OF tho two houses Their action 10 be
ratified or rejected. He urged that the
amendment offered by Rev DR.. Taylor
be n0n-concurred in.
Rev. DIR. Dayenpurt's Views.
Rev. DIR. Davenport. of Tennessee, went
over the histor. OF the church in the
matter OF confirming the election Of bish-
ops, and declared that the foundation Of
the present house OF deputies was based
upon the perpetuaton of the principle
that the governed were to be heard in
respect to the selection of those who gov
eTned them. Therefore he said the re-
port OF the committee was not a novelty,
but was based on the fundamental princi-
piles Of the organization of the church.
Mr. Fairbanks. Of Florida. spoke in
favor of the amendment by Rev. DR.. Tay-
lor 10 strike out the recommendation Of
the committee.
Rev. DIR. Taylor Of Springfield, the
Trainer OF the amendment TO strike out
the work OF the committee, closed the
deSate. The only po-nt, he said. which
the amendment aimed 10 emDOdy was the
point of local sslf-governmenJ.
Il am astOnished that that point should
be stigmatized as revolutionary or as an
infringement upon the rights OF the
NnOle DOdN, SAID Dr- Taylor.
Continuing. he said 1t has b en-
stated that the standing committees sim
ply acted as a board Of consent or dissent
OF as committees OF reference. but when
it comes TO a practical question. and il
is understood that they often c cDme to an
erroneous conclusion. change should b.
made
Vote as you may, if you put il in the
constitution, but shall go to shore with
my colors flying.
1T gives me great pain, however to
differ in this one point from the COM
mittee."
Rev. DIR. Egar offered an amendment
which was ruled out of order. The
amendment Of Rev. DR.. Taylor was voted
on and lost.
Rev. Dr. Egar then made an amend
ment that the word further" be strick-
en- from the section. in order that ii
would not be construed that the consent
TO a confirmation must first be made by
the house of bishops and then by the
standing committees.
Rev Dr. Jewell objected TO the amend
ment.
Rev DR. Elliott. of this city, also OBJ
jected to the amendment as he thought
the consent of the bishops should be OBJ
tanned first.
Judge SIiness' Suggestion.
Judge Stiness offered an amendment to
DR. Egar's amendment that in place OF
striking out the word further" the
words previous consent of the standing
committees" be stricken out. Rev Dr.
Walker of Virginia objected because Of
the delay anything requiring a certain
order Of consent would involve.
Judge Stiness' amendment was then
voted on and lost by a vote of 80 to
204.
Rev DR.. Jewell offered an amendment
10 Dr. Egar's amendment, making il read:
The consent of the bishops shall be
final"
Rev. DR. Rogers. of Texas, said that
the word final should be stricken out.
Rev. DR.. Jewell withdrew the word fl
pal.' and his amendment was adopted.
Rev. DR.. Egar withdrew his amend
ment. and Mr.. Fairbanks of Florida Of
fered an amendment, providing that when
provinces were established the consent of
the standing committees of the provinces
should be required. The amendment was
promptly laid on the table by a viva voce
vote.
Rev. Mr.. Short, of Missouri. declared
that in view of the expansion of the
American Government which was con-
templated he would like to amend the sec
tion to read In the territory known as
the United States" His amendment was
laid on the table.
Rev. Mr. Moore of West Virginia Of
fered an amendment TO make the section
read 'the consent of the convention as a
whole Rev. DR.. Dix said that the
amendment was not necessary. Rev. DR.
Weller moved to strike out the whole OF
section 2
This amendment was laid on the table
as was that of Dr. Moore