Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-10-12
DISCUSSED DIVORCE CANON
BRANCHES OF EPISCOPAL COUNCIL
DIVIDED ON QUESTION.

DIR. Mckim of This City Thinks Pro-
| posed Rule is Too
| Stringent.
At the morning session of the house of
| bishops at the Episcopal convention in San
| Francisco yesterday five missionary bishops
| were elected. as follows: District Of Han
| kow, Rev. James Addison Ingle, DID,; dis
| trict of the Philippines. Rev. Charles H.
| Brent, DID,; district of Olympia. Rev. Dr..
| Frederick Kalor, DID,; district of Porto
| Rico. Rev. William Cabel Brown, DID,.
| and district of North Dakota, Rev. Chas.
Campbell Pierce. DID.
After the selection of these new bishops
the house adopted the eleventh and last
| article Of the amendments to the consti-
tuition. 1t provides for the manner Of
amending that instrument.
Consideration of canon 81, relating to
the disciplining Of persons marrying again
after being divorced, caused a protracted
debate, at the close of which the following
substitute was adopted:
mo person divorced for cause arising af-
ter marriage and marrying again during TIE
lifetime OF the other party to the divorce,
| nor any person marrying person so d.
vorced, shall be admitted to baptism or
confirmation, or be permitted to receive the
holy communion until the written approval
of the bishop shall be given.
Provided, That the prohibition shall not
apply to the case of the innocent party to
a divorce suit for adultery; and,
Provided, also. That the sacrament shall
| in case be refused to penitent party
| in imminent danger of DEATH
On the assembling Of the house of depu-
| ties an attempt to take up matters On the
calendar in advance of their order was
| promptly tabled, showing a disposition to
ha nr6ar yyh iphf tn
sures consideration of the canon mar
| riage and divorce and other prominent
subjects
The house went into committee of the
whole on the marriage and divorce canon.
An attempt to strike out a requirement
of section 3. that in recording a marriage
the clergy shall state the ages of the
parties, was defeated. requirement that
when practicable, the parish register record
shall be signed by the married parties and
| the witnesses was, after much objection,
retained
Section was then adopted as whole
This brought the argument to article 4.
already adopted by the bishops which
forbids the marriage of persons divorced
for cause not existing before their former
marriages. practical bar to the remar-
rage Of divorced persons by the Episcopal
church.
Mr.. Lewis of Pennsylvania rose to cor
rect misrepresentation of the public re-
port of this cannon. He explained that 1t
| does not propose to prevent any one at all
| from being married. 1t proposes only t.
| forbid ministers Of the Episcopal Church
to marry any divorced person whatever
| whose former husband or wife is still
living.
Rev. DR.. Huntington offered an arnend-
ment, intended to except the innocent
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. He supported his
proposal by an appeal to the authority of
ha 7,
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 of the canon on
the solemnizing Of marriage was continued
| until after recess, several vigorous address,
es being made.
Thomas c. Elder of Virginia urged that
evidence regarding divorce should be sought
for In the entire 'rectrd. rather 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. DR.. Radford of Delaware ad-
| 1t came from the house of bishops. He said
the conditions Of society and common de-
cency required just such stringent legisla-
ton as Is proposed.
Rev. DR.. McKim Of Washington had deem
sympathy with the motive of the canon
as it came from the bishops, but he did
not believe 1t would accomplish the end in
tended. 1t was revolutionary legislation
in the church. He differed from those
who with the Church Of Rome, held mar
riage 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 Light
foot. Wordsworth and Trench.
John P. Thomas. jr., Of South Carolina,
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.
Former United States Attorney George
II. Williams of Oregon opposed all restric-
lions upon the subject by the church He
would leave all such restrictions to the civil
law
I'VE find," he said, that the sanctitv Of
| the home has been grossly violated in very
many cases. In such cases the guilty
| should be punished. but the innocent
| should be allowed to go free"
Rev. Dr. Huntington of New York asked
leave to withdraw his acceptance of GER
tain additions to his amendment and to
speak upon that amendment originally
proposed by him.
He added: I'm our zeal for sanctity let
us not forget justice. There are innocent
parties in some of these cases under dis
cussion. to whom consideration ought to
be shown"
Mr.. Elders amendment to DR.. Hunting
toms amendment was put to a vote and
lost. The committee then arose and re-
ported progress to the house. It was de-
cided that the house should next go Into
committee on the whole on this subject
Monday at 1890 O'Clock
watering Trough. wanted.
From the Outlook.
I became acquainted with colored fam
| lily in distress In Philadelphia. The man
was in jail for attempting to murder his
| family. The wife's story Of why and how
was suggestive. Her husband was q hack
| and express driver. His hours were long,
| his income uncertain. Some weeks he made
| only 81 or So, and this. she said, nearly all