The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-05-20

IN THIS Q1OcGSt II INV SoPPOt
people and is Independent of mission
funds. with the exception of one, who'
owing to physical infirmity. wishes TO re-
sign. but whose successor the people VIII
gladly support We do not think that,
with this exception, any one of the seven
English-speaking clergy is receiving less
than $1,000 year. or its eouilaeent.
IT is true the bishop is deprived of
large portion of his own stipend, and
while we sympathize with his iordsnip In
this loss, we are glad to feel That II Will
not seriously Inconvenience him; but the
value to the Church in Hawaii of a con-
situation of that stipend must, we should
think, be gagged by the benefits accru-
ing TO that church thereby in life, prog
ress, etc.
In 1882 the Bishop of Honolulu, in a
printed appeal to the church in England
for more funds for his work, stated:
1.-THE bishops staff consists of SIX
priests. four deacons, one lay schoolmas-
ter. one lay teacher, conducting four
churches and four mission buildings,
three boarding schools and four DAY
schools est Andrews Priory not being
included), who are not maintained at
less cost than $4,000 per annum."
At the present time there are eight
priests and one deacon in this mission,
ono boarding school and two day schools
(St. Andrews Priory not being included).
During this period twenty men have
come to this diocese to work, either or
dained or to be ordained here, and TWEEN
ty-one have left.
In 1882 the population of Honolulu was
IA. coo; now it is nearly 10000.
Under such circumstances does it COM
mend itself to the Episcopal Church gen.
orally, after an existence of more than
thirty-five years in such wealthy coun-
try as this, that we, in Hawaii, should
expect from, or depend upon societies in
other lands for our maintenance, while
other religious bodies in Honolulu are
supporting seven or eight times many
ministers as we are, and in one case.
large missions in the South Seas also,
besides having last year contributed So
600 to its American Board of Foreign
Missions, with the promise of $4,000 more?
Referring to Bishop Halls statement,
that if this diocese is received into the
American church, 1t must, on general &C.
clesiastical principles, be received with
its bishop.
We, as laymen, do not pretend to ex-
press any opinion as to the obligations
which the Bishop of Vermont considers
to be fastened upon the church, although
we presume that in the church, as in all
other phases of community life, general
principles are suspended so soon as they
cease to promote the general good.
Does Bishop Hall mean that bishop
and his diocese are inseparable under all
circumstances? That if a case We're to
occur where bishop so antagonized his
clergy and his people, that years of fric-
ton brought the great machine to
standstill-that the spiritual life of the
whole diocese must be sacrificed to
zr;o rNri,1n fn1n
would not such case be an instance OF
the flock feeding the shepherd?
The conditions under which this mis-
sion will be transferred to the American
church are of vital Importance to this
diocese. We feel that grave responsi-
bility indeed rests upon those who shall
deal with the matter. 1t is no mere ques-
ton of the observance of an ecclesiasu-
cal principle, or the establishing Of
precedent, or question of personal SYM
pathy or etiquette 1t is matter which
involves the spiritual life of large
number of persons, the preservation of
which, we feel, should be the chief OBJ
ject to be- attained. The future welfare
of the children of our church is largely
bound up in the action that will be taxi
en-, and whether this fact is realized or
not, it still remains a fact
We are quite in accord with the Bish-
op of Vermont in his views that 1t is
most desirable that the situation of this
church should be fairly and generally
understood; we go further and say that
it is not only desirable, but of para
mount Importance to the welfare of the
diocese. 1t is to this end that our AS
ISOLATION owes it's existence.
We beg to apologize to the Bishop of
Vermont for having ventured to criticize
the correctness of his information. but
fearing it to have been received from an
unreliable source, and feeling. too, that
Justice to those of our church people
and clergy who have for so many years
suffered Misrepresentation, demanded
that some explanation should be made,
we have taken this liberty. in the inter
ests of matter of the deepest import
to us all.
Thanking you for your courtesy, we
are very truly yours,
GEO. S. HARRIS,
President.
For the Church Defence and Extension
Association of Hawaii.
Honolulu, II. l., Jan. g 1901.
THE DIOCESE OF HONOLULU.
To the editor of the Living Church.
On February I'd the New York Church.
man opened its columns to personal at
a retired mechanic of this City (whom
1 do not credit with the authorship of
the letter., styling himself President of
the Church Defence and Extension Asso-
citation of Hawaii" although that paper
could have had no difficulty in ascer-
tanning that the said association hal no
connection with the Anglican Church in
the Islands. / have already sent you a
copy of the declaration it has been nee
essary to issue to expose the true char
acter of an association, the mislea ding
title of which is made use of by the par
ty who promoted it. for the publica ton
of statements in which there is not one
particle of truth. The object of the
letter published by the Churchman is to
create prejudice in the minds of Ameri-
can churchmen against the Diocese of
and. if possible, to prevent
aid being contributed in the States to
counterbalance the loss of the S. p -
grant. To this end the following state
ment is made: His lordship has no
provision to make for the support of
this mission. We feel that in justice to
our people this should be known. Every
clergyman in this diocese is now support
ed by the people and is Independent of
mission funds, with the exception of one
who, owing to physical infirmity, wishes