Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1898-04-07

IN his hands a single liDe intimat-
log the Bishops approval Of
church IN the Punabou district.
until after the union Of the two
congregations.
The Bishop admits that il seem
ed to him on receiving Mr.. Us
born's letter that, IL there bad
been a great influx Of church peo-
pie into that district be
tween April and July, a
church there might be desirable,
but. "Mr. Usborne's letter con
tanned no data on which an opin-
ion could be formed on the other
side of the globe. Therefore no
opinion was expressed"
Further, the Bishop says that
Mr.. osborne as his commissary
could not take action which, under
the constitution, the Bishop him
self could not take without con
sulting his chapter. Mr.. Osborne
did not take such course, and he
received a strong remonstrance
from Canon Kitcat on the subject.
When, in face of this remon-
STRANGE and without waiting for
replies to his letters to the Bis
hop, Mr.. Osborne proceeded to
the purchase of a lot and the
erection of a building thereon,
''he Was embsrkiug il private
venture, with which the Bishop
has nothing to do"
The Board of Trustees before
mentioned could not offend the
Punahou property at law il il
were attacked, as it is the private
property of the three gentlemen
who hold it.
Mr.. osborne had caused letter
to be written to the Wardens of
the Cathedral by Cecil Brown, as
his attorney at-law, enjoining
them from dlsbursing any money
coming into their hands, "until
such time as it has been decided
10y the proper authorities 10 Eng
land who is entitled to receive the
same" Upon this incident the
Bishop remarks: "No authori
ties in England having any juria.
diction in the matter, the effect of
this injunction, if enforced, would
have been to stop the services Of
the cathedral sine die"
In conclusion Bishop Willis re
la'es how he had, on March 81,
1898, declared all the offices to
which he appointed the Rev. John
osborne to be vacant, because the
incumbent had released himself
from the solemn obligations to
observe the statutes of the catbe-
drsl," etc.
For the rest, the Bishop COM
pletes his case bv publishing the
correspondence showing that Mr..
Usborne had refused TO produce
TO Mr.. Kenny, British Consul
General-acting on the Bishops
behalf-the letter from which he
quoted the alleged approval OF the
Bishop to his new church scheme.
The refusal WAS made on the
ground that it WAS pri-
vate letter, which the recipient
could not give to the
public. On his part the Con-
sui General, replying to the
Bishop, states that his certificate
to the genuineness of the extract,
which Mr.. osborne gave in his
pamphlet, was made out IN the
usual notarial form and, 10 effect,
was hut formal performance of
an official function. He compared
the passage indicated with the
original, and at the time he was
quite unaware of the difference
existing between the Bishop aud
Mr. osborne. In this connection
il should be stated that the Bishop,
in the body of his r ply herein
summarized, says regarding the
pamphleteer's plea of privacy,
that the extract read from the
pulpit, ard published in the pam
phlet, is just as private as the
rest OF the letter, and no more So"