The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-04-17
BISHOPS DEMAND A. TRIAL
A Conservation Ceremony May
Lead to Church Hearing.

LtdO 10 4 IlufGn nearing
PreIates Who Assisted in the Con=e-
Grafton of the Right Rev. Heber
Weller. Jr., Reply TO Implied Crit
icisnGs of Their Presiding officer.
NEW YORK April 1.-THE seven hish-
ops who took part in the conservation last
November of the Rev Heber Weller il,
as Bishop Coad 5utor OF the Diocese of
Fond du Lac Wis. resent the implied crit
icism Of Bishop Clark the Presiding Off
Ger Of the House OF Bishops. in regard to
the ceremony incident to the conservation
referred to. and demand trial according
TO the carons of the Episcopal Church
Such a hearing would prove one of the
most imposing and interesting in the his
tory OF the church in America The bone
OF contention appears to have been found
in the character Of the veStments worn
by the prelates taking part in the convoca-
ton ceremonies. Bishop Clark of Rhode
Island. deeminG 1t proper t. make public
disclaimer of responsibility therefor The
following is his disclaimer:
Bishops House. Providence. r. 7.
As the recent conservation of the BISh-
oP Coadjutor of Fond du Lac was held I'M
der the authority of the commission signed
and sealed by NE as Presiding Bishop OF
the Church I feel myself called upon to
dfscIaim any responsibility for the viola
ton Of the Tlibrics on that occasion and
the introduction Of veStments having no
authority OF use IN the Church.
THOMAS II. CLARK,
Presiding Bishop
The seven bishops who took part in that
picturesque ccnSecra don ceremony did not
like the action of Bishop Clark. They were
quite willing that none Of the response
biIity should rest on him. but they dis
agreed entirely with the view that any re-
spoHsibiIity could possibly have rested on
him They take exception TO his calling
himself the Presiding Bishop Of the
Church. since 10 their mind, il smacks
of an assumption Of authority over them
which they viii not for one moment al
low and which they vigorously repudiate.
These seven bishops involved are VII
liam E. McLaren. Bishop of Chicago; c.
= Grafton. Bishop Of Fond du Lac; Isaac
Lea Nicholson Bishop OF Milwaukee; c.
Mott Williams. Bishop Of Marquette; JOS
eph NJ. Francis. Bishop Of Indiana; Arthur
l. Williams, Bishop Coadjutor of Nebras-
ka. and Charles P. Anderson, bishop Co
adjutor of Chicago
These prelatss have just sent a letter TO
Bishop Clark stating their case, asSum-
ing fun responsibility for the cOnsecra-
| ton ceremony. demanding a trial on the
charges that they transgressed the can
onicaI Law, and expressing a willingness
to abide by any decision given if they are
found oui1tyg
Their .etter says IN part:
we unhesitatingIy accept and approve
your disclaimer of responsibility, because,
| as we propose TO show, no responsibility
rested japon YOU as presiding bishop in
CO n conservation at Fond
dU Lac. after You had sent the commits
! sion to those who consecrated the bishop
cad JutOT-eleCt-
we would have asked your attention
to this fact, as well as to other portions
! OF your letter at an earlier date. had We
not resolved to refrain from doing so IN
I'll ClamOr had abaJed. and until that
broad. tolerant. nd inclusive spirit which
was Characteristic Of the Reformation
settlement and Is so necessary to the
peace and growth Of the Church had re-
Sumed sway
The heading Of your letter announces
I il to be an official communication. Al
though addressed to the public and not TO
Us. its reference to ourselves as we'll as
| the character OF its aVermentS cOmpeIS US
| TO take respectful notice Of it. with ey-
| cry assurance OF our TraTerHaI regard for
yourself as q brother in the episcopate,
but with profound surprise that YOU
sho,12d have formed and expressed opin-
I ions concerning the conservation Of a
bishop CoadjutOr at Fond du Lac (Which
| opinions reflect upon seven of your breth-
REM without such direct and plenary in
IGTHldIIOn IUuCniQg or acton. individual
/ OF collective. as could easily have been
| secured by you. in order TO possess such
a measure Of knowledge as would have
made an impartial opinion practica bic.
For reasons which viii presently ap-
| pear, we cannot recognize you, our much
Teve-ed brother, as holding any archiepis-
cOFal or judicial relation to our action,
nor 90 We propose in this letter 10 offer
any plea. positive or negative 20 the
charges mentioned in YOUR cornraunfca-
I ion FgaEz Il.
tlnue TO decline TO 10 until the only au-
thority which is invested with the right
| to do so shall call upon US TO plead guilty
or not guilty In making this statement
We dISavow any desire to conceal oJIr ac-
ton; We simply decline TO offer anv OIpa
whatever III the face Of charges crna nat
ing from one who is absolutely devoid of
any judicial relation to that action
We find ourselves compelled to eTnpha-
SIZE this point because the title which
perhaps inadvertently, you employ in des-
iSnatiHg Yourself suggests the iries or
some measure Of review and control -
vested iii the incumbent Of the position
which you now hold with the respect and
ttHeTdJlon OF t!fe whole Church The Ii
tie Presiding Bishop Of the Church is
rot Iv,--lf' IN our canon law and when IL
IS used IN popular paTlance il cannot
mean more than Presiding Pisb0n Of me
House o. Bishops II would be very IIr-
fortunate II there should exist in the
Protestant Episcopal Church land there
are many = ho fear It does exist a pro-
/ cess OF evolution which would end in
clothing the senior bishop with metro
| political powers. This is very undesir-
| able. and nothing would be more cacu-
| lated to prejudice a lawful development
Of the movement toward a proper pro-
VInCIaI system We diSclaim any refIec-
ton upon yourself as though II had been
your prcmeditated purpose to assume
powers not conferred by the constitution
or CanOus This we do not for one mo-
ment believe: but drifts and tendencies
often exercise influence where the mind
IS unsUSDiciolfs OF the logical terminus
ad quem- This particular drift and ten
deJ2cy can be checked only by exposure
ana protest So that the Church may he
pat on its guard against the subtle en-
crOachTneuJS OF Centralizing policy
which would work iTTepaTabIe harm 10 re-
/ liSlon and enGa1ser our liberties as
Churchmen- The mind Of the Church has
ample opportunity TO express itself in
1 constitutional methods without clothing
any furctionary with powers that simu-
lale papalism-
THAT the conservation at Fond du Lac
was cousurnrnated under the authority of
the commission signed and sealed by me
tyou} IS true; but permit US TO remind you
that you did not act Presiding Bishop
Of the Church in sending that commits
sion The canon under which you acted
deSisuateS you as the Presiding Bishop
Of the House Of Bishops and this title is
frequently applied 70 that fuHctionary II
| is therefore evident that the title is not
presiding Bishop of the Church since no
such title or office exists by provision of
Law, but is Presiding Bishop Of the
House Of Bishops.
with reference to the powers which the
constitution and capOns confer upon the