The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-07-04

in the Judgment of your committee,
essential to order and good govern
ment that the diocese should be or
gained by synod
You are probably aware that the
words within inverted commas in the
second paragraph of the above quo
tation are those of the judgment Of the
judicial committee Of priNy council in
the celebrated case of Long VS.. Bish-
op of Capetown.
1t will be clear to you by these
words, expressly or by Implication
that, in the view OF the highest judi
cial authority of the British Empire,
members of voluntary association do
not escape from the obligation of ODE
dience to the enactmenrs of its gov
erning body by not having been re-
quired to make promise of such ODE
dience. Their consent to the statutes,
rules and enactmentS OF the associa-
ton is implied by their membership
in the association.
A decision of the Supreme Court of
Illinois in Chase VS.. Cheney contains
a passage to the same effect that a
member of voluntary association.
having a full share in all benefits re-
sulting therefrom, should adhere to its
discipline and obey it's laws
and canons" as long as he remains a
member. IF reason and conscience
viii not permit, the connection should
be severed"
Such being the principles on which
our governing body Is constituted, the
question with regard to the tenure OF
church property is this: Has this
governing body laid down any rules or
statutes which the clergy and lay
members have given their consent to.
and are therefore under an obligation
to observe?
To this the answer can be unhesi-
tatingy given: 1t has done SO most
clearly and distinctly.
The diocesan synod has appointed
body of trustees, who are incorporated
under the laws of the Territory, to hold
in trust the property of the Anglican
church in Hawaii. In the eye of the
law no property is the property Of the
Anglican church in Hawaii unless it
is vested in the aforesaid corporation,
But, it is asked, as it is not laid
down that the property in every par
ish or mission district shall be con-
veyed to these trustees, Is it not open
to the members of the church in any
particular parish or mission to pur-
chase property and appoint their own
trustees? 1t is not open to them to do
so, for a very plain reason. They are
members of a voluntary association
ing body for the ordering of the affairs
and the management of the property
of the association, and has enacted
statute dealing with property ques-
tons. For any clergyman having a
seat in the synod or any lay members
of the church having their representa-
tive on the synod, to take upon them
selves to appoint other trustees is to
usurp the functions of the synod and
to disregar da statute, which, as has
already been shown, is by virtue of
their membership in the church, bind
ing on them with all the force of law.
By appointing a body of trustees
who, being incorporated by law, can
defend every clergyman in the possess
sion of his church and parsonage, and
by enacting a statute governing the
trustees in dealing with the property.
the governing body of the Anglican
church has laid down with unmistaka-
bic clearness what steps are to be
taken for securing property to the
church. Having done this, it would be
superfluous for it to add what is not
to be done. Those who do not respect
a plain picket fence will not be re-
strained from trespassing by a barbed
wire.
If our present system of holding
property is not found satisfactory, it Is
in the power of the synod to author
iZe alterations or amendments. But
until other provision for the tenure of
property is made, it remains that
without any "shall' or must" no
property can be the property of the
Anglican church in Hawaii unless it
is conveyed to the Incorporated board
of trustees, the one and only body of
trustees recognized by the governing
body of the Anglican church; nor may
any person or persons other than the
incorporated trustees lawfully hold
real estate for the purpose and use of
the Anglican church in any part of
the Territory of Hawaii.
1t having now been shown that our
synodal provision for the tenure of
property is neither defective nor am
biguous, it only remains to state once
more that every Office bearer. clerical
or lay, and every one qualified to vote
for a representative in the synod, is
under a solemn obligation to abide by
these provisions.
An argument that has been made use
of, that a disregard of the constitution
is justified at the present time in con-
sequence of political change, lis one
that no honorable person will listen to
for a moment. If any argument Is TO
be founded on the new conditions that
have arisen. it is that at no previous
time was there greater need of the
stanchest loyalty to the constitution.
in order to remove all anomalies and
all hindrances to the settled order and
peace of the church