The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-03-13

1 less remember that / was introduced tC
your house at its morning sitting by
Bishop Potter on Monday. October 4
the fifth day of the session When re-
cess was taken YOU announced that OF
reassembling the bishops would go into
council on the Hawaiian question. and
YOU asked me to attend. Since my ar
rival in San Francisco on the evening
of the 5th, not one of the bishops had
called on me, nor had / received the
faintest intfma ton that any action had
been already taken on that matter.
had undertaken the journey 10 San
Francisco by invitation. Supposing that
there would be mutual consultation as
to the future of the Diocese of Homo
lulu which founded originally in the
kingdom of an independent sovereign
had come in consequence of the Span
ish-American war within the territory
of the United States The Diocesan
Synod of the church in Hawaii had al
ready expressed its readiness to take
the necessary steps for the union OF
the diocese with the American branch
of the Anglican communion. Not only
was the resignation of the bishop not
essential to accomplish this result, but,
having made the question a special
study, / say without fear of contra
diction. that without the bishop the
result could not have been constitu-
tionally attained. 1t could only be
Anglican church in Hawaii through its
diocesan synod. And an act OF the
synod required the concurrent consent
of the bishop. clergy and laity.
Nevertheless. although il was known
that l should be in the city in time
for the fifth day of the session, a res
olution had already been brought into
the house and passed asking for my
resignation. Having been passed in
council and no knowledge of it had
gone abroad. and as / have already
said. no intimation of it had been con-
veyed to me until coming into your
house on that Monday afternoon, Octo
Der Z. the secretary read out the reso-
luton. a copy of it being placed in
my hand. The occasion was one that
stands, as far as 1 can discover, I'M
paralleled in the history of the church.
the bishop of an independent See in
vited to the house of bishops of
branch of the church with which his
diocese was not yet connected, and on
entering their assembly of over eighty
bishops. all but seven of whom were
junior to himself in the episcopate, to
be called upon to address them on
resolution already passed asking him
to resign.
The present action of the bishop of
New York throws a side light upon an
action which was to me at the time
and ineXplicable. 1t
is perfectly true that after the annex
alton of the Islands had taken place,
1 signifed my readiness to resign on
condition of the continuity of the See
being secured, should such a course
be desired by the house of bishops. But
my offer on that condition had not
been accepted. Moreover, the aid given
to this diocese by the Society for the
of the Gospel, which in
cluded my entire stipend, had been
on June 80, 1900, and from
that date l had maintained the status
of the church in the Islands, through
the aid of a few earnest churchmen,
without receiving a dollar from the
church in the United States, which in
1888 had claimed the ultimate jurisdic-
ton over the church in the Islands.
That Notwithstanding the cutting off
of an annual grant of S4.250 per annum,
not n single mission had been aban-
doued, constituted. i still venture to
think. some claim on the consideration
Df your house; nor was it a presump-
ton on my part to expect that the
first step on the part of your house,
If change in the episcopate was de-
sired. would be to confer with me with
regard TO the renewal of the offer /
had made in 1899 and To ascertain the
true position of the diocese in respect
Of its property. clergy. and institutions.
Until the publication of our diocesan
statistics in the general convention
edition of the Catholic Wit
ness, it was impossible for the mem
bers of your house to have had any
real knowledge of the position of af-
fairs in this diocese.
Nor could the whole state of the
diocese be learned from that statisti-
cal table. For. holding most strongly
that for a bishop voluntarily to resign
his See is to look back from the
have rooted myself in these Islands
rs deeply as any bishop in the United
States is rooted in his diocese. An
important educational institution has
rom a month after my arrival in 1872
been carried on on my own private
property. which would have ultimately
become the property of the church. BY
l will executed in 1897, L had made my |
successor in the See legatee of much |
hat / possess in trust for the church. |
rhe house OF bishops having now call |
d upon me to tear up my roots in |
ase Islands. forcing me out" in the |
a ;uage used by Bishop Potter to the !
iecretary of the s. p c., in his letter /
# April 20. 1900. Incorporated in the /
iociety'S memorandum OF October 4. |
900, that Will must now be revoked. |
such being the true position of affairs. |
low came il about that a house COM
'osed OF the leading men in the United .
,ldttS pdSStu Il TtSOiuIlOn SO
Unfair to n brother in the episcopate? |
am persuaded in my own mind that
he consent OF the house was obtained
Inder a false impression conveyed by 4
he bishop OF New York. 1 have al
eady in my address to the synod.
opy OF which L have sent you. criti-
iSed a memorial from these Islands
which sgas presented to both houses of /
he general convention. need only add
hat IL was not promoted by Ameri-
ans. and that ii never lay in a public
lace for signature, which would I'M
oubtedly have been the case had the
been acting honorably and
onstitutionally. 1 stated in my adj
ress my belief that it had been sign
d by all sorts and conditions of men.
romen and children. and not a word
as been said in synod or out in re-
uttal OF that statement.
My criticism of that memorial did, J
owever, elicit one important state
1ent which appears on the journal OF
he proceedings OF the synod now in
he press. 1t was this. that the pro-
1oters OF that memorial acted on the
lstigation OF a prominent churchman