The times., 1898-10-19
THE AFTERNOON SESSION.
Discussion of Article v of the Con-
stitutiOn Continued

The discussion on article of the con-
stitution was continued In the afternoon
session An amendment proposed by the
Rev DR.. Pittinger, relating to the con-
solidation of two dioceses. and eliminate
ing the consent of the presiding bishops.
was adopted, and the vote was then taken
on the whole article, resulting in its
adoption.
Article 9, which had also been recon-
mitted to the committee. vas taken up.
| The article relates to the mode of trying
bishops, presbyters. and deacons. The
committee had made some minor changes
which We're explained by DIR. Dix
Rev DIR. Mcconnell, of Long Island.
made strong speech against the article.
taking the ground that it was in effect
! establishing two courts of last resort. one
court Of bishops and the other a do
/ cesan court
DR.. McConnell's speech made a marked
impression on the house. as previous 10
his remarks the disposition seemed to be
to pass the article as speedily as possible
and get 10 other business. He recognized
this tendency in his speech and declared
that he would have said nothing did ne not
feel strongly that the ultimate result OF the
proposed change in the constitution would
be to revolutionize the whole judicial pro-
ceeding of the church. He then offered
an amendment to obviate the difficulty.
DR.. Mcconnell was followed by Mr. Bid
die, of Pennsylvania, who urged that the
point just raised was a very important
one and that it ought not to be passed
without having some explanation from
the committee.
Il think he said, the reverend deputy
from Long Island has pointed out a very
inappropriate part of the system which is
proposed here for court of appeals The
point he has made. that we are about to
establish two supreme courts. is a very
vital and important one and has not been
answered"
Mr.. Biddle, in discussing the point that
bishops and clergy should be tried by
their peers, said: I'VE are all peers in
this country. thank God" Continuing. he
said that no man was tried by jury or
court of his class or profession in any
civil court or criminal court but by his
fellow citizens, and in that sense he was
the peer OF even the justices of the Sy-
preme Court of the United States. He
did not consider that it was a vital point
that every man in the church should be
tried by his own order, and urged that the
language of the article in providing for
such trial would certainly lead to the es-
tablishment of two courts of last resort
one for the bishops and on for the pres
byters and deacons
Rev. DR.. McKim also took part in the
debate on the side Of Dr. Mcconnell He
thought the point was well taken. He
said: IF we established a supreme court
for the trial of clergymen and laymzn,
and another supreme court for the trial
of bishops. we Will have a division. and a
house divided against itself cannot
stand.
Mr.. Mcconnell. of Louisiana. a lev
deputy and also lawyer by profession,
brought forward another point in the
same line. He cited two illustrative
cases, one where bishop was tried for
heresy, and whose case had reached the
court of last resort. where he was ac-
quilted; the other where a presbyter was
tried for the same offense, and WHOSE
case was appealed to the other court Of
last resort. where he was convicted. That
would lead to the establishment of one
statement of doctrine by one court and
another statement by the other court, Mr.
Mcconnell thought.
Rev. DR.. Ward. of Florida, created a
smile by saying that if he We're to be
tried he would not want to be tried by
his peers.
The amendment of Dr. Mcconnell was
laid upon the table.
Rev Dr. Fulton said there was no
doubt that point had been raised
which had not been adequately answered.
While he was a member of the commit
tee he felt that when courts of last re-
sort were to be established before which
questions of doctrine would be heard, he
must differ from the report of the COM
mittee. He offered resolution to recon-
nit the article to the committee.
Rev. DR.. Esar moved that instead of
recommitting the article as it first came
from the committee be adopted. In view
of this motion DIR. Fulton withdrew his
motion for recommittal.
Another substitute was offered and on
motion all of them were recommitted 10
the committee and the house adjourned.