The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-05-17
REASON HE OPPOSED.

Il believe in the increase of the Epis-
! copal endowment but not for division
purposes. l will endeavor to prevent
any money being subscribed in my
! parish for the division. one half the
diocese will be called upon to bear
what the whole diocese Is hardly able
to meet now.
! THE bishop tells you il is a prac-
tical question of finance for those
who want the division. l sent circu-
lars throughout the whole diocese to
ascertain how much could be secured
| in pledges towards the solution Of this
| question. The responses indicate less
| than $500"
Rev. DR.. Foley concluded by offering
as a substitute to Secretary Clements
resolution, resolution that the con-
| sideration Of the question of division
be postponed till the next convention,
| that the delegates may have more op-
portunity to study the committees re-
| por.
This brought a vigorous retort from
Major Everett Warren. of st. Lukes,
who has all along been prominent in
the advocacy of two dioceses.
After criticising Rev. DR.. Foley's in
depreciation of the bishops attitude as
unwarranted, he declared that the
diocese has gone too far in the question
| of division to stop and advised the
adoption of Secretary Clements reso-
luton as the best way of testing the
sentiment of the diocese. 1--WE can
thus get a census of the DIR. Foley
negatives" he added, "and next year
when we come together again we will
| ho
tion of whether or not we are tor
| division"
The plea of Rev Dr.. Foley that
more time was needed for the consid-
Grafton of the report was characterized
by Major Warren as absurd. "Theo-
retically, he have spent a lot of time ="
Major Warren remarked, "in solving
this problem. Gaughter). Doesn't DR..
! Foley at least give us credit for some
absorptive power"
He concluded with remark about
the increased good that could be ac-
complished by additional episcopal
work.
NOONTIDE PRAYER.
Twelve o'clock having arrived Bishop
Talbot led in the noontide prayer.
Then he declared himself on the diyis-
ion question once more. Nothing ut
tered by DIR. Foley has misrepresented
anything l have said to him, and the
same applies to Mr. Warren. / am in
favor of division every time when we
get the money l am not in favor of
it till we do get the money"
Rev. Mr.. Eckel quoted from Bishop
Rulson's address in 1896 in which was
foreshadowed as Rev. Mr.. Eckel inter-
preted it, the necessity of a division in
the near future, and then quoted from
Bishop Talbots address of two years
ago in which the latter said "It is
eXpedient that the diocese should be
divided at the earliest possible date"
Two years ago, he went on to say,
the convention declared IN favor of
division and said it should occur within
three years. Divisin always rebounds
to the good of diocese, he argued, and
in support of this proposition present.
ed some interesting statistics. When
Pennsylvania was one diocese 5000, 900
was collected for church work Seven
years afterward when there were three
dioceses $l,129,00O was raised. And this,
he averred was paralleled in other
places he also called attention to the
fact that other ecclesiastical bodies
have more subdivision than the Epls-