The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-05-20

office OF presiding bishop OF the general
chudch elective. Heretofore the presiding
bishop has been the senior bishop III
the United States A. motion was there
upon made and carried that the report be
taken in seriatlm and each item inspected
carefully
One or two OF the minor changes were
adopted without discussion, and then the
amendment touching the matter or pre-
siding bishop preclpitated q big DEBATE.
1t was promptly moved that the amend
ment be accepted. and rs promptly that
It be rejected. The bishop had Indicated
that he was opposed to the amendment,
and he was requested to give the coun-
ell the benefit Of his reason. In response
to this request the bishop made state
nent, In which he Indicated mis- chief OBJ
lection to be that the elective feature
would introduce Il disturbing element into
the general convention and would create
tendency to electoncering methods and
the formation of parties. The Ercslding
bishop. he said, should be an aged and
consecreated man, removed from the am
billions OF middle life. Bishop Gibson de-
clared that II the council endorsed the
amendment he would vote against II IN
the house of bishops.
Fear an Archbishop.
The discussion began and developed
rapidly In every quarter Of the mouse
Judge Wallace wished to have the ma IT.
ter left to the discretion and good judg-
ment Of the deputies to the convention,
but Mr. Joseph Bryan. one of these depu-
ties, ut once arose and declared in so
many words that If hclived to get to the
convention he would vote for the amend-
ment.
Each side lined up strongly on the
question. 1t was contended by those IN
favor of the amendment that the change
was made necessary by the conditions
that have existed In the past The great
office was always made subject TO tho
infrmlties of old age. The senior bishop
was frequently too old and feeble to be
brought to the convention. and some one
would have to be elected at each ses-
sion to take his place. Frequent occa-
sions when this has happened We're cited.
It was also brought out that the PROPOSE
ton for the elective office emanated from
the very House of Bishops itself and
was forced by n necessity everywhere
obvious.
On the other hand many agreed with
the bishop that the adoption OF the
amendment would at each session of the
convention mean political CONFUSION
OF the church An objectioneand a charge
even more serious was made. The amend
ment was declared to be the second step
In movement for a head of the churcli-
an archbishop. who should WELD the
bolts of centralized power. The first
step was taken several years ago when
the name of the presiding bishop was
changed from presiding bishop "of the
House OF bishops" to presiding bishop
"of the church, This alleged tendency
TO a Capitalization of power and the
vesting OF 1t in one man. who would
virtually and in effect be an archbishop
was emphasized at every hand by the
opponents of the amendment.
Among those who engaged in the debate
were Mr. Joseph Bryan, DR.. Robert
Strange and others for the amendment
and Mr.. John l.. Williams. DR.. w. H.
Evans, Rev. Mr.. Massie, Rev L. II.
Mason and others for the opposluon
Mr.. Williams and Mr.. Mason, were menl-
bers of the committee and signed the
report recommending the adoption OF
the amendment, but they now Withdrew
their names. The matter ended with the
passage by a vote of So to SO of n reso-
luton by the Rev. Mr.. Kloman. instruct
ing the deputies to oppose the amend
ment in the plan of the convention. a
movement made later In the day for
reconsideration failed.
Resolution Lost.
In due time the consideration Of the
report brought the council again to inc
item to which Judge Wallace had made
objection. Judge Wallace amended ms
resolution so that it expressed the dis
approval of the council to the amend
ment In question. but left the hands or
the delegates united. that they might
vote as In their Judgment they might
deem wisest and best. Several speeches
were made, and Mr.. Roosevelt Page
strongly opposed the resolution declar-
Ing that he saw behind the amendments
none of the grave dangers Judge wal
lace had endeavored to point out, Mr..
John l.. Williams and Mr.. Joseph Bryan
also spoke. declaring that the change was
simply grammatical one. which did cot
In any way affect the questions to which
Judge Wallace had directed attention.
A vote was taken and tho resolution
was buried under n large majority against
It. The amendment was then adopted.
After some scattering business tho
council adjourned until $3.50 o'clock this
morning.
Special Matters.
Tho bishop closed his address with the
mention of several matters, the practical
Importance of which, he declared, de-
maaded special mention. Under this head
lie made reference to the care of the old
colonial churches In the State; the emer-
grncy fund. the apportionment for mis-
sons; the necessity for an enlargement
of the diocesan force of laborers; and to
the BETHANY Institute. His utterances
uron the question of establishing the Of
flee OF archdeacon were very Important
and significant. He went over the ground
thoroughly and pointed out the need for
scn an officer
'The only questions about an archdea-
con, or general missionary, which the
council has to consider" he said, are,
as it seems to me, the questions oil salary
and of responsibility. II the bishop mad
the salary to give such man as could
do this work efficiently, he could easily
manage the rest. But IL the diocese either
dives from its own funds, or orders from
tho missionary funds the salary OF
diocesan officer, 1t may very properly
claim n part in making the rules by
which he Is to be governed and posi-
tly in selecting the man. Az any rate,
the Diocesan Missionary Committee would
feel that a burden OF responsibility was
taken from their shoulders II the coun-
oil would request them 70 appropriate
n sum OF money for the salary or
,,,Is