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

resolution. Some other line might,
later, be substituted. He simply
wanted to have the question settled in
this provisional way.
Rev. Alfred M. Abel, of Jonestown;
ArchdeacOn James p. Buxton. Of Drift
ton, and Rev. William Reese Scott, Phi.
D., of Hazleton, wanted Secretary
Clement to vary Line No further by
placing the three lower Luzerne par
ishes in the South diocese, and when
Mr.. Clement declined to accept this
amendment, Rev. DIR. Scott offered as
an amendment resolution to adopt
Line No. 4.
Rev. Mr.. woodle suggested that the
amendments be not insisted upon and
that Secretary Clements resolution be
permitted to pass. "If the men who
favor division can be spurred to in
crease the Episcopal endowment to
100000" he said, "why should we OPP
pose them? The diocese is scarcely
unit and hardly can be such. There
Is the hard coal region and soft coal
region and down in the southwestern
portion is country that Bishop Tai
bot should, originally. have been sent
to instead of to Idaho. I can't under
stand why the board overlooked such
large game and sent him out among
the cowboys to hunt coyotes 0aughter.)
For the time being Line No. is all
right. a
THE LUZERNE PARISHES.
Archdeacon Buxton again offered a
vigorous opposition to having the lower
Luzerne parishes thrown across the
mountain into the prospective North
diocese and it had the effect of induc-
ing Mr.. Scott to accept Rev. Mr..
Abel's amendment, including these par
ishes in the South diocese. In consid-
GRAFTON of this, Rev. Mr.. Scott with
drew his amendment ravoring Line No.
4 and the question before the house
once more was Secretary Clement s
original resolution. Mr. Clement ex-
planned hat the line can be changed by
| a majority vote any time before TAX
| ing the matter into the general con-
vention, but it should be understood
| he added, that the pledges would be
| solicited with the stipulation that tn-
| division was to be according to Line
! No. l. and that if any change in the
| line was made, the pledges would have
! to be re-solicted.
| Then came a lengthy and strone
| speech from one of the leading oppon-
ents of division, Rev. George C. Foley
! d. D., rector Of Trinity church, VIII
Transport. The attitude of Bishop Tai
bot on the division question was, he
believed, prompted in the main by
courtesy. The bishop, he said, accepted
j tA bp Of ,ic
with the understanding that a division
was impending. In the letter of invi-
tation, it was announced to him that
the division was contemplated, though
this clause Rev. DR.. Foley believed
was inserted without the knowledge OF
the members of the committee, other
than the one who wrote it. He him.
self did not see it or he would have
objected to its insertion. Being a
man of extreme courtesy and probity
he feels it his duty to make these fire.
quent references to division. He ha.
said to me over and over again that he
is not overworked. He can make hi.
usual visits to his own diocese ant
also take on duty for other bishops
! There is no necessity for more epis.
copal work. There never was so much
Episcopal work done in this diocese a:
is being done now. (cheers). l am un,
alterably opposed to division. I prefer
a co-adjutor. There is no necessity fol
a division now. The report of thi.
committee does not commit us tC
| division. If We ever have the neces
sity of a division, we will have thi.
report at hand. 1t is by no means {
! present question.