The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-05-15

There was a large crowd about the
! little pro-cathedral church as early as
$50 o'clock. This increased as the
time for the ordination ceremonies ap-
preached. After the Sunday school had
! finished its exercises. the vicar, Rev.
Dr. Paddock. was approached by In
spector Cross of the police, who held a
! conversation with him. Several police
men were outside the church and some
in the church.
The church does not seat more than
800 people, and there was about twice
that number sitting and standing
Bishop Potter drove to the church with
the candidates for admission. the Rev.
DR.. Charles a. Briggs and the Rev. DIR.
Charles A. Snedaker.
The Rev. DIR. Cornelius B. Smith, who
was to present DR.. Briggs, and who is
emeritus rector of St. James church,
and DR.. George P. Nelson, who was TO
present the Rev. DR.. Snedaker, and
who is one of the assistant secretaries
of the diocese. arrived later together.
With them was the Rev. DR.. Osborne
of Trinity church, Trenton, n. j. All
of these went to the Office of the vicar.
No Notice of Protest.
Bishop Potter was asked what he had
to say preliminary To the ceremonies.
He said he had no notice of protest.
at the thought of any of the Directing
clergymen appearing in the church and
making a scene. He, however, said
that he had received a letter from
layman protesting against the ordlna-
ton of DR.. Briggs, and as this letter
was written under misrepresentation
of the facts and law, he had answered.
He did not desire to give the name OF
the layman, who, he said, was high up
in the councils of the church. InaSmuch
as the letter he, himself, had written
in answer to it was general in It's IA
ture, and set forth his position, he had
no objection to making it public. The
letter is as follows:
Bishop Potter's Letter.
New York, May 10, 1S99.-My Dear Sir
Your letter of the 9Th inst is before
which it refers my best consideration.
You exaggerate. however my powers,
and are, in regard TO them, under con-
siderable misapprehension- In asking
me to refuse to ordain the Rev. DR..
Briggs'-'to take the responsibility of act
ing in the case as 1t demands, and to
have the courage of my convictions, you
are apparently under the impression that
my power in the matter is wholly within
my discretion. Such is not the case A
bishops powers are constitutional, not
absolute. In the matter of ordination. he
can only act when certain preliminary
action by others has been held. but when
this is the case. and n candidate for
ders stands at the threshold of the min
istry the canOns of ordination declare
that the bishop shall. not may, then
proceed and take the order for the ordi-
nation of the person who has met the
preliminary tests in the premises.
..All these tests have been applied in
the case of the person to whom your let
ter refers. and l have received certifi
cate to that effect from the standing COM
mttee of the diocese.
Has No Discretion.
Under these circumstances and unless
some charge affecting the character or
teachings of the Rev. DR.. Briggs. which
was not covered by the testimonial has
been presented to me l should not con-
slider myself as having discretion to dis
regard the plain imperative of the canon.
But nothing of the sort has been adj
duced. The book. the teachings of which
have lately been challenged. has been
for some time before the public and the
standing committee of the diocese has
been convened since recent and particular
attention has been called to 1t. 1t was,
in my judgment. competent to that body
il ii had seen fit to do so. to recall the
certificate originally forwarded to me- on
the ground that IL had been signed under
misapprehension or with insufficient
knowledge but this 1t has not seen fit to
do. I must therefore accept. that GER
tificate as final and I shall do so.