The Birmingham age-herald., 1904-06-01

vember informing him that he would from that day have his name enrolled? It would have been then and there the cas- lest and most natural thing for the bishop to have called his and our attention to what he wanted and expected If any thing was expected of us to do? Why did the bishop not at some time or in some way from November till after tho adjournment of the council in May, some six months make known to the vestry or MT. Ewing that he expected something else for them to do to make this election canonical? Why did he not In sending formal certificate the latter part Of De- cember make some mention of what he expected and wanted, it would then have been the easiest matter possible Tor him to have done so; and why did he not do so when within ten days thereafter he visited the parish and confirmed the class presented to him by Mir Ewing as the rector of the Advent? Or why not in February, when he attended the convo- cation near a week. with MT. Ewing in the meeting taking part and considered by all as the rector of the Advent, did he not say something to somebody that there was something else to be done in order to make the election canonical? And above all and after all, why did the bishop not at the meeting of the council
 
 ton the fact to some one in attendance from the Advent, so that they could have brought the matter up before the council and have any objection then and there settled?
 Knew Name Was Enrolled.
 He knew that MT. Ewing's name was enrolled and called at the opening of the council that he was accorded a seat and vote and that he could not have been accorded vote except as the rector Of the Advent. Why did he allow us to be- lleve that he was regularly enrolled as such rector and act upon this beief throughout the session? So I conclude that not only the vestry understood and regarded that they had done all that was required but that the bishop so regarded it as well. and that his demand is but an afterthought.
 Section 1 of this canon was intended more for the benefit and protection of the vestry than it was intended to give the bishop the right arbitrarily to defeat the rights of a vestry. 1t can be waived and was waived by the bishop In this case. That 1t can be waived Is evidenced by the fact that not a rector In the diocese has ever been required to follow it's strict letter. Such was demanded or followed in the call or Rev. MT. Murray or or Rev. MT. Johnson of St. Marys, or later Mir. Amber or MT. Dobbs and I hear that it was followed or demanded In the case of Rev. MT. Gamble of Selma. If it could possibly be required then 1 contend that evidence in writing was expressed in the bishops letter to Bishop Bratten on the 17th of October, ten days before the last election of MT. Ewing
 If MT. Ewing was not enrolled we were led to believe by the silence of the secre- tary, and of the bishop as well, that he had been enrolled as such rector. If such was fact you, as secretary of the council, cannot now legally change the minutes, not even by instructions from the bishop. If he was not enrolled and not regarded by you and the bishop as as entitled to his seat fin the council as the regularly elected rector of the Advent why is 1t, we ask. that you would be will ing to commit so great a wrong in not calling our attention to the fact before or during the council that we might then and there bring the matter before the council under title 1, canon 1, section. 3. and have the question then and there de- termined forever Let justice be done though the heavens fall" Yours truly,
 R. H. PEARSON, Senior Warden. Birmingham, Ala, May 30, 1904