The Savannah morning news., 1901-10-12
The LAW OF DIVORCE
EPIsCoPALIANs ENGROssED IN THE
DISCUSSION.
MUCH ARGUMENT IN HOUSE.
LEADING DIvINEs OPPOSE EN-
IRENE POSITION.


Persons Marrying After Being Di-
vorced-Authority of Christ Cited
i'm Favor of Innocent Party, In d.
vorce When the Cause Is Adultery.
Too Many Divorces Granted, Say
Divines-New Missionary Bishops
| Selected.
San Francisco, Oct. 1.-THE question
of marriage and divorce was before
both houses of the triennial conference
of the Episcopal Church of America
to-day. The bishops adopted a substi
tute for the proposed canon 81, provid
ing for the discipline of persons mar
rying again after being divorced.
The principal change made by the
substitute is the provision that such
person may receive the sacrament on
the written consent of a bishop.
The house of deputies began the
eagerly awaited debate of section of
the proposed canon Sc, which virtual
ly prohibits the remarriage in the
church of divorced persons. The dis
cussion will be continued on Monday.
The only vote reached during the day
Huntington's amendment providing for
determining the cause of divorce in the
case of a divorced person applying to
be married. This was defeated.
Five missionary bishops were voted
for and named to-day by the house of
bishops to the house of deputies, where
the final election must take place
CO, mi
of deputies. on assembling to-day, went
into Committee of the Whole, on the
marriage and divorce canon. An at
tempt to strike out a requirement of
section 5, that in recording a marriage
the clergy shall state the ages of the
parties, was defeated. requirement
that, when practicable, the parish reg
lister record shall be signed by the mar
ried parties. and the witnesses was,
after much objection, retained.
Section three was then adopted as a
whole. This brought the argument to
article four. already adopted by the
bishops. which forbids the marriage of
persons divorced for cause not existing
before their former marriages. prac-
tical bar to the remarriage of divorced
pesons by the Episcopal Church.
Does Not Prevent Remarriage.
Mr.. Lewis of Pennsylvania 'ose TO
correct a misapprehension of the public
report Of his canon. He explained that
it does not propose to prevent anyone
at all from being married 1t pro-
poses only OF forbid ministers of the
Episcopal Church to marry any di-
vorced person whatever, whose former
husband or wife is still living
Rev. DR.. Huntington offered an
amendment intended to except the in
nocent party to a divorce obtained for
the cause of adultery, when the fact is
| made to appear by certified record from
the court granting the divorce. lie
| supported his proposal by an appeal to
the authority of Jesus Christ, which,
he said, cannot be attacked except by
the assistance of what is known as
| the higher criticism, and this could
be fully answered, if the need arose.
Consideration of the Huntington
amendment to section four of the
canon on the solemnization of mar
riage was continued until after recess,
| several vigorous addresses being made.
| Richard II Battle of North Carolina,
argued strongly for DR.. Huntingtons
amendment as being in accordance
with the scripture and free from the
charge Of impracticability.
Thomas c. Elder of Virginia urged
that evidence regarding divorce should
% sought for in the entire record, rath
| er than in the decree of the court alone,
which would not in every case, recite
| the ground of the divorce. He moved
an amendment to that effect.
Dr.. Huntington approved Mr.. Elders
amendment.
Flood of Divorces.
Rev. DR.. Greer of New York cited the
| fact that more divorces are granted in
this country than in all the countries
| of Europe together. Every considera-
| ton of social purity of our country. of
the sacredness of the home and of the
teaching of Christ, led him to oppose
| DR.. Huntingtons amendment. and to
| favor the measure just as ii came from
| the bishops.
Rev. DR.. McKim of Washington had
| deep sympathy with the motive of
the canon as it came from the bish-
ops, but he did not believe it would
accomplish the end intended. 1t was
revolutionary legislation in the church.
| He differed from those who. with the
Church of Rome. held marriage to be
absolutely indissoluble. The claim was
unscriptural. he said. He cited Bishop
King of Litchfield. England, as unable
to regard marriage as indissoluble.
This view was supported by Bishops
Lightfoot. Wordsworth and French.
John +. Thomas, Jr., of South Car
olina, where no divorces are allowed
by the state law, said the law of the
church should correspond with the
high standard adopted by his state.
Warm Argument by Deputies.
Mr.. Elders amendment to DR.. Hun
tington's amendment was put TO a vote
and lost. The committee then rose and
reported progress to the house. 1t was
decided that the house should next go
into committee of the whole on this
subject. Monday. at 1880 o'clock.
The house then adjourned.
New Missionary Bishops Named.
San Francisco, Oct. 1.-THE house of
bishops to-day nominated missionary
bishops TO be elected by the House of
Representatives as follows:
District of Han Kow. Rev. James
Addison Ingle. now OF Han Kow.
District Of the Philippines, Rev.
Charles II. Brunt, now Of ST. Stephens,
Boston.
District OF Olympia, Rev. Fred VIII
liam Kaetor, now Of Dubuque, Iowa.
District of Porto Rico and adjacent
islands, Rev. William cabell Brown.
now connected with the mission Of Bra
Ill
District OF North Dakota, Rev.
Charles Campbell Pierce.
The house Of bishops adopted the