The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-10-12
DEBAT. OF
 DEPUTIES Tk question of Marriage /, and Divorce. CANON IS NOT COMPLETED Huntington Amendment CauS- ed Much Discussion. Five Missionary Bishops are Named by the House of Bishops
 to the House of
 Deputies.

San Francisco, Oct. 1.-The question Of marriage and divorce was before both | houses of the tri-ennial convention or the Episcopal Church of America today. The Bishops adopted a substitute for the proposed Canon g, providing for the dis cipline of persons marrying again after | being divorced. The principal change made by the substitute is the provision that such person may receive the sacra- ment on the written consent of Bishop. The House of Deputies began the eager Ily-awaited debate on Section of the pro- posed Canon S6 which virtually prohibits the re-marriage in the church of divorced | nersons. The discussion will be contin- ued on Monday. The only vote reached during the day was on g. proposed modi- fcation of Dr. Huntington's amendment providing for determining the cause Of divorce in the case of a divorced person applying to be married This was de- | feated.
 | Five missionary Bishops were voted for and named today by the House Of Bishops to the House of Deputies, where the final election must take place House of Deputies
 The House of Deputies of the Episcopal | Church at 1O:30 this morning went into committee of the whole on the new mar riage and divorce canon. An attempt to | strike out a requirement of Section that in recording a marriage, the clergy shall state the ages of the parties, was defeat ed, A requirement. that when practical, the parish register record should be sign ed by the married parties, and the wit nesses wae, after much objection, re- tained.
 Section was then adopted as a whole. This brought the controversy down to the famous Article f. already adopted by the Bishops, which forbids the marriage of persons divorced for cause not existing before their former marriage-a practical bar to the remarriage of divorced per- sons by the Episcopal Church.
 MT. Lewis of Pennsylvania rose to cor rect a misapprehension of the public re- port on his canon. He explained that 1t does not propose to prevent any one at all from being married 1t only proposes to forbid ministers of the Episcopal Church to marry any divorced person whatever whose former husband or wife is still living
 Rev. pr. Huntington offered an amend ment intended to except the innocent party to a divorce obtained for the cause of adultery when the fact Is made to ap- pear by a certified record from the court granting the divorce. He 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.
 Argument for Amendment.
 Richard H. Battle of North Carolina argued strongly for pr. Huntington's s 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 be sought for in the whole record rather than in the decree of the court alone which would not In every case recite the ground of the divorce, and moved an amendment to that effect
 Dr. Huntington said he saw the point referred to by MT. Elder and approved the amendment
 Dr. Hadford of Delaware, advocated the passage of the section just as it came from the House of Bishops. He said the conditions of society and common decency required just such stringent legislation as is proposed.
 Rev Dr. Greer of New York, cited the fact that more divorces were granted fin this country than in all the countries of Europe together Every consideration of social purity of our country, of the sacredness of the home and of the teach. ing of Christ as he understood it, led him to oppose Dr. Huntington's amendment and to favor the measure just as it came
 from the bishops.
 Rev. Dr. McKim of Washington ,said
 the canon as it came from the bishops
 was revolutionary legislation in the church. He differed from those who. witt the church of Rome. held marriage to bt absolutely indissoluble. The claim was . unscriptural he said He cited BishoI King, of Litchfield, Eng, as unable tC
 regard marriage as indissoluble. This
 view was supported by Bishop Light
 foot Wordsworth and Trench.
 Not in Accord With Scripture.
 pr. Bacchus of Long Island, claimed that the proposed measure did not have
 the warrant of Holy Scripture as found at least in St. Matthew. Nor did it com mand the warrant of common sense anC . moral judgment.
 John P. Thomas, Jr., of South Carolina
 where no divorces are allowed by tho State law, said the law of the church should correspond with the high standard
 adopted by his State and always recog nized there except during few years O. the reconstruction period.
 Ex-United States Attorney Genera , George H. Williams of Oregon, opposed all restrictions upon the subject by tn, church. He would leave all such restric , tions to the civil law.
 Rev. pr. Huntington of New York aske, leave to withdraw his acceptance of cer tain additions to his amendment and t,
 speak upon that amendment as original! proposed by him. He added: 'ln ou zeal for sanctity let us not forget justice There are innocent persons in some O
 these cases under discussion, to whom consideration ought to be shown" Mir. Elders amendment to Mir. Hunting tons amendment was put to vote an' lost. The committee then rose It wa } decided that the house should next g'
 into committee of the whole on this sub 5 ject Monday at half past 10 o'clock. Ad ! Journed.
 The House of Bishops has nominated