New-York tribune., 1903-11-23
OPPOSED BISHOP FUTILE.
AUTHORITY QUESTIONED.
Not 4UO1ced to Have Al to Sag
1bOut DR.. Lincs's Conservation.

question of the authority of the presiding
pishop was raised at the conservation last
week or Bishop Lines of the Protestant Epsco-
p8i Dnocese of Newark. Bishop Tuttle, of Mis-
souIi' the presiding bishop of the Protestant
HpiScopal Church in the United States. claimed
.ie right, by virtue of his Office, of arranging
'he conservation services In all Details. The
'anolhg committee of the diocese would not
ooilceoe the claim and the dispute was prolonged
up 10 within few minutes before the begin
Llhs OF the service at Grace Church in Newark.
ihen compromise was effected.
II Is provided in of the general con-
Nehuon on bishops that "the presiding bishop
ShaIl take order for the conservation of said
pishop-elect by himself and two other bishops or
oy any three bishops 10 whom he may communi-
cate the testimonials" The canon does not say
now FAR the authority given shall extend, and
the standing committee contended that the
matter must be determined by precedents. No
former presiding bishop. it contended. had
claimed to do more than fix the time and place
for conservation and the bishops who
were to act as consecrators the preacher. the
readers and presenters. Bishop Tuttle. how
ever. directed that the programme be sent to
| him in advance his desire being, il was thought.
10 prevent a rtualistic service. as he is con-
servative. The programme was sent to him. and
he returned it to the standing committee with
the order that the creed and litany be re-
cited and not sung, as had been arranged
Last Tuesday, at a meeting in Hoboken
the committee unanimously ratified the pro-
gramme as prepared by the committee. and a
letter to the bishop was drawn up saying that
the committee could not concede his right to
dictate in the details. Bishop Tuttle received
this communication Immediately after his ar
rival in Newark and requested the committee to
meet him He told that meeting was
then impracticable, and ne reasserted his claim
to full authority
On the following day. just prior to the cere-
monies. the standing committee held meet
ing in the parish house of Grace Church and
1t again declined to yield. The bishop was in
the building at the time. He then went to
the committee and requested that the creed be
recited This request granted, and the
bishop thereupon agreed that the litany should
be sung. The incident has been talked over
since then by churchmen, and it is to be taken
up by the church publications.
Bishop Tuttle, when asked whether he would
claim the same authority at the conservation
of a coadjutor bishop replied in the affirm
ative. If this is allowed he will have all to
say regarding the conservation of DR.. Greer
as coadjuter to Bishop Potter
The Rev. Dr. ]. Lewis Parks. rector Of Calvary
Church. at his home. No 1O3 East Twenty
f1rst-st.. last evening, said to Tribune re-
porter:
There is no difference between a coadjutor
bishop and presiding bishop far the
rights .ssf she pfvslniJg bishop concerned in
the matter of his sconsecration. The law gives
the presiding bishop certain rights. AS II is
phrased, he is to take order for the conse-
Grafton of this bishop 1t does not make a
bit OF difference whether it IS bishop coadjutor
or bishop of a diocese. AS 1 understand it.
the law puts the whole matter in the hands
of the presiding bishop BY courtesy the
bishop-elect is always consulted to his
wishes. but the presiding bishop issues the let
ters which give validity to the conservation.
L don't know anything about the facts Of
this case, but this I understand to be the gen.
eral law governing all cases