The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-03-25

American church and the Hawaiian
church.
The chapel was built by the Bishops
commissioner, who holds the power of
attorney, and by the rector of the par
ish. The Bishop was duly notified by
four different letters and was fully
aware of what was going on, but made
no response. On his return he asked
that the property be decided to the
board of trustees of the Anglican
church: but our church law does not
require that property shall be vested
in the board. The property had been
bought and was held in trust by Messrs
IT. May, T. r. Walker and myself, who
had given a note for $4,000 for the bal
ance of the purchase money. We Of
fered to transfer the property to the
board of trustees if the Bishop would
assume liability and release the note.
He wouldn't do it; and as business men
we refused to turn over the property
until the note was satisfied.
Then the Bishop began to prosecute
me. AS soon as the chapel was fin
ished he would not receive it. So we
didn't open it. A few days after he
suspended me and refused to let me Of
lfciate in the cathedral and diocese. l
accepted that. A fortnight after he
wrote to me Withdrawing my docu-
ments as a rector That he could not
do, having no power.
II am rector of the diocese and have
Nas much right to preach anywhere in
the diocese as the Bishop has. How
ever, instead of fighting and raising a
row in the parish by preaching in the
cathedral, 1 came to st. Clements and
opened services, as L had a perfect
right to do. That was three years ago,
and 1 rave officiated here ever since
This Church Defence and Extension
Association, which the Bishop also at
lacks, was gotten up by some of the
principal people in town to encourage
harmony and good will among church
members, to assist and perfect such
church members, whether individually
or collectively, and to extend the work
of the Church in Hawaii; and with
view of having planted in these Islands
a branch of the Protestant Episcopal
Church of the United States of Ameri-
ca" as it appears in the charter. The
Bishop was eligible to join this. and
should have joined it.
This association offered to pay the
Expenses and two months hotel bills of
an American Bishop who should come
down here and look into church affairs
on the Islands, but it could not be
ARRANGED:
Bishop Willis did precisely the same
thing as he is doing to me with thu
Sisters of the st. Andrews Priory, a
branch of an English sisterhood, sew
eral years ago. He treated Mr.. Gowan
then rector as he is treating me and
expelled him from the church. The Sis
tiers were so indignant that they left
the congregation of the Bishop and
went to the Second congregation.
lWhereupon the Bishop wrote home to
the English Sisterhood that this branch
had left the church The English head
wrote out, asking these Sisters con-
corning it, and it was all explained.
"Of course. these letters of Bishop
Willis do me no harm here in Honolulu.
where everyone is familiar with affairs
and knows the Bishop. But he is send
ing them broadcast all over the United
States and England. People will see
them over a Bishops name and will at
Itach Importance to them. My friends
in England will read them and say,
| What John osborne left the church,
They will not understand. l don't like
to have my name dragged around in
this disgraceful way. ! want to avoid
publicity"
This card from the Church Defence
and Extension Association appears in
the Star:
| Editor Star: In your paper of yes
terday you publish two letters over
the signature of the Bishop of Homo
lulu, in one of which the reputation
of this association is criticised.
Permit me to say that we consider
these imputations beneath our notice
and altogether unworthy of contradic
ton. GEO. S. HARRIS,
President the Church Defence and Elk
tension Association of Hawaii
Honolulu, March %.
GENERAL POSITION OF BISHOP.
Following is the article from the
Philadelphia Church Standard which,
Bishop Willis says, determines the va
lidity of his present attitude:
THE SEE OF HONOLULU.
The present and future status of the
See of Honolulu will necessarily occupy
the attention of the General Convention
| in October next There is some danger
that subordinate details of this perplex-
ing matter may be made the subject of
! debate, TO the comparative neglect VI lIle
more important principles of catholic
and constitutional law which are involv-
ed in the case. 1t is hardly possible that
a debate on this subject should be avoid
ed. In deed. it has already been begun.
| The S. p. G.. has withdrawn the appro-
priation on which the See of Honolulu
has mainly depended for support, and In
October last the Venerable Society pub
lished a memorandum mat subject.
The Bishop of Honolulu has issued
pamphlet in which he criticises the ac
ton of the Society, declaring it to be
without precedent. In the course of his
argument, Bishop Willis refers to two
letters contained in the memorandum, one
from the secretary to the Bishop of New
York, and another from the Bishop to
the secretary, on which Bishop Willis
observes:
1t is proposed on one side of the Allan
tic, and accepted on the other, that,
without any regard to the fact that Ho-
nolulu has been for thirty-eight years
| the seat of Bishop of the Anglican COM
munion. and that the See is not vacant,
the islands which constitute the Diocese
of Honolulu should either be placed I'M
der the charge of the Bishop OF Calitor-
MIA or be assigned to "a neighboring
bishop the nearest neighboring bishop
being over 600 miles awaV.h