The Independent. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1895-1905, 1900-12-27

OF episcopal care wi,
some other ju,isdietion, such as The
Philippines or California.
With regard to the condition con-
cerring financial support, the bi-
shop has explained that "the reso
luton had no intention OF imposing
perpetual obligation in regard to
expenditure, but had regard only
to what seeEed to be simple jus.
ticA, that in taking over a church
already organized with the three.
fold ministry there should be no
immediate Withdrawal Of the aid on
which the ministry depends"
Asa matter Of fact, the bishops
stipend has always been consider
ably less than that paid to our mis-
sionary bishop (S225O in all, against
$4,000 plus $500 for travelling ex-
penses), aud Of this sum about $500
is supplied by au eudoSmept fund,
which would be handed over,
Z 1t seems to have been assumed
by soma that the American church
in taking charge OF the Hawai- an
mission could ignore the existing
bishop and make other provision
for episcopal rule aud ministrations
in the Islands. But it cannot need
much consideration to show this
to be impossible. either on general
ecclesiastical principles or accord
ing to our own canons So long as
there isa bishop OF Honolulu I'VE
can only treat with the diocese and
it's official head or receive the do
cese with its bishop. In our own
missionary jurisdictions it is only in
the case OF vacancy" in a bishop
rio that the presiding bishop is en-
powered to take charge OF the work
or to appoint some .otper bishop to
do this as his substitute, (Title l /,
Canon 10, vi. 81 This provision has
been stretched, perhaps necessarily,
to cover the case of the Philippine
Islands and OF Puerto Rico, but
whether lawfully or not in these
cases it cannot apply to the wholly
different case OF Honolulu.
Doubtless there are peculiar diff
culties in thensi!uation at. Honolulu,
arising in part from the unhappy
political complications of the last
few years But il should also in
fairness be known that no small
share OF the bishops unpopularity
is due to his adherence to definite
principles.
The bishops voluntary resigna-
tion CT the zee would doubtless
clear the ground and remove some
difficulties; but it will be easily un-
derstood that many considerations
may lead bishop, after twenty
eight years occupancy of the see
to shrink from such stop, cspeci.
ally il it seems to bs unwarrantably
demanded. At the present time the
withdrawal Of the S. p. G.. grants
on the understanding (Which is
surely erroneous) that we could al
once assume responsible charge oil
the diocese, has thrown upon the
aged bishop the sole responsibility
of providing for the support of the
mission work, while he is deprived
OF most OF his own stipend.
The case Of accepting and adopt
ing into our body ecclesiastical an
existing diocese is altogether new
aud suggests several problems. Be
ing totally unprovided for in. oul
capon', tits evident that the gen
eral convention is the ouly body
competent to deal Awith it;S 1t ii
most desirable that the sit uatiou
should be fairly and generally un
derstood beforehand. 1t may be
added that joint com nission on
increased responsibilities growing
out OF territory assum d or to be as
sumed by the Government of the
United Slater, was appointed by the
general convention Of 1898 and in.
structed to report facts ard recon
mendations to the Board OF Man
ayers. the House of Bishops also an