The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-02-02
MUST PROVE
HIS CLAIM
Anglican Churchman
on Bishop Willis.
AUTHORITY IS QUESTIONED
Asks the Distinguished Prelate 10
Show What Rights
He, Has.

see that what has been stated is true.
IT will be obvious to most men that |
it would be an impossible thing for one
to confer upon any individual |
in another country, having govern
ment of its own, any authority to inter
fere with the rights and liberties of any
citizen in that country; nor would 1t be
possible to confer on him any exclusive
privilege in that country without the
consent of its government.
It is the inherent right of every citi-
zen to enjoy unmoleSted the freedom Sc
cured to him by his government, and no
power outside may interfere. This ap-
plies in all matters, whether commercial,
civil, political or ecclesiastical
How, then, could England appoint
Bishop to Honolulu, a foreign country
possessed of an independent Legislature,
and invest him with jurisdiction and
coercive authority over citizens of this
country, that would enable him not only
to interfere with, but to deprive them
of their religious rights and liberties and
punish them at will.
In the Diocesan Magazine of April,
1898, the Bishop says, The Anglican
Church in Hawaii is a voluntary asso-
citation, and here, as in the u ited States
(as it has been decided by the highest
lHt Ollly ISiuSuy "AiiNiA LIZ
member of voluntary association has,
when he is dissatisfied with the proceed
ings of the body with which he is con-
Injected, is to withdraw from it," Con-
slider all those persons in Hawaii who
are members of the Protestant Episco-
pal Church of the United States All
those who have withdrawn from the
Anglican Church in Hawaii, and all those
who have not withdrawn, but are refus-
ed Episcopal ministration, is 1T reason
able to suppose that England either
could or would give to any bishop an
Authority which might serve to exclude
all these persons from their full church
privileges during the bishops life or
pleasure?
the ecclesiastical courts and privy coun-
Icil of England. on which this argument
lis chiefly based, England could no more
Iconfer on the Bishop of Honolulu the
power to administers ecclesiastical law.
which included coercive authority over
either the clergy or the laity In TINS
country, against their will. than she
could grant him power to administer CIV
Il law. 1t does not require legal mind
to grasp the unreasonableness of this
contention.
In support, then, of the statement made
that England has not conferred on the
Bishop of Honolulu Episcopal jurisdic-
ton over all churchmen in this mission,
but only over such as assent to his au-
Ithority, permit me to quote two or three
important cases from Phillimore and
from Grips, both high authorities on
Ecclesiastical law
To make these quotations clearer, ii
would be better to explain two or three
words, that may not be familiar to all
persons
BY "jurisdiction'' is meant 1.-THE right
of exercising the functions OF judge OF
IA legal tribunal 1.-The function or ca
lpacity of governing in general, con
trolling authority" Century Diction-
iary.)
By "coercive Jurisdiction or authority
is meant having power to coerce, as by
law, authority or force" Century Die
ltionary.)
BY letters patent is meant IAN oper
letter under the seal of the State or ma
Ition granting some property, right, au-
thority or title" Century Dictionary
BY Grown colony is meant an Eng.
lish colony which has not a Parliamen-
tary representation. Phillimore.)
In 1858 Bishop Colenso was consecrateC
and appointed Bishop of Natal in Soutf
Africa, of which Bishop Gray was met
lropolitan. Later the metropolitan ex
communicated the Bishop OF Natal, wht
brought the case before the courts O.
England. Phillimore states the result
thus:
1.-THE privy council, in the case of R,
The Bishop of Natal. in 1854. said W.
therefore arrive at the conclusion tina
although in a Crown colony, properly s.
called, or in cases where the letters pat
ent are made in pursuance of the au
thority of an act of Parliament, Dish
opric may be constituted and eccles1asti
cal jurisdiction conferred by the sole au
!. thority Of the Crown; yet that the letter
lpatent of the Crown will not have an.
such effect or operation in a colony o
settlement which is possessed Of an IN
dependent Legislature
Let it be granted or assumed that tn
letters patent are sufficient in law t
confer on DR.. Gray, the ecclesiastical
tween him and the Bishops of Natal an
|. Grahams Town the personal relation c
: metropolitan and Suffragan as ecclesias
tics; yet it is quite clear that the Crow
had no power to confer any jurisdictio
Tor coercive legal authority upon tn
- metropolitan over the suffragan bishop
lor over any other person" (Eol. II, pl
1882
I'm an earlier case, Long VS.. The Bisf
lop of Capetown, in 1868, the same tribl
NAL expressed itself as follows:
1.-The Church of England, in place
where there is no church established {
law. is in the same situation with an
lother religious Douy-lu no poteei boe
mo worse position; and the members ma
ladont. as the members of any other con
&c munion may adopt, rules for enforcir
!, discipline within their body which WI
- be binding on those who expressly or
Implication have assented to them
n ut may be further laid down thi
ID where any religious or other lawful a
te ISOLATION has not only agreed on Il
lg terms of its union, but has also cons'
In tuted a tribunal to determine wheth
Ithe rules of the association have be-
violated by any of it's members or nc
and what shall be the consequence
such violation, the decision OF sucn Ut
unaI will be binding when it has act
within the scope of its authority, has o
served such forms as the rules requil
if any forms be prescribed, and, If NJ
has proceeded in manner consona
with the principles Of justice.
In such cases the tribunals so cons