The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1905-01-17

itself
Third-A copy of an affidavit made
by j. Frederick. Jenkinson, and dated
Philadelphia, Pa, December 6, 1904,
as to the names of the signers to the
presentment aforesaid.
Fourth-An affidavit made by w. G.
Miller, w. f. Hitler, A. r. Jackson,
NJ l.. Jackson, Jas. Denithorne and
John Langdon, dated Huntington, Pa,
January End, 1905, as to the appear
ance of their names on the present
ment aforesaid, and withdrawing the
said names, stating that their signatur-
es had been given under mi5apprehen-
sion of the purpose intended.
Fifth-A copy of paper signed by
j. Frederick Jenkinson, A. ]. Arnold,
Lord Gilberson, Herbert Noble, J. A.
Deall, William b. Wilson, Richard p
Canon, and Agnew Mcbride, dated at
Philadelphia, Pa, January End, 1905,
withdrawing their names from the pre-
sentiment aforesaid
SiXth-A statement by J. Frederick
Jenkinson, dated at Philadelphia, Jan
'"i ~ lOVD anu Vol llVu ulluNl OiNll
explaining his affidavit of December
8, 1904, (No. 8 above.)
Seventh-A letter from J. Lord Gil
berson, date January s. 1906, withdraw.
ing his name from the presentment
aforesaid and declaring that the court
as constituted was not fitted to con-
slider the presentment. He alleged
that one of the members of the court
from New York had not sat as a dele
gate to the last.
The list from which the names were
drawn was not a list of deputies to
the last general convention as requir-
ed by canon 8, section 4, for either
it included one more name than was
entitled to be therein, or it excluded
one name that should have been there
in. 1t was finally understood that the
facts above mentioned, had not come
to the attention of the presiding bishop
prior to the time of his designation of
the members of the board and his noti-
fication and communication under the
canon Q, section 4, (2)
1T was further understood that the
presiding bishop deemed himself to
have discharged his full duty in the
matter and to be functus ofIicio after
such action on his part. Under these
J. conditions the eleven deputies present
not unmindful of their duty of canon
icGl obedience to the presiding bishop
in all matters in which he should have
exercised the authority of his high Of
fee, felt and feel that the duty de-
volved upon them to determine for
themselves what was their present
position under the law of the church
and what their duty to the church"
After serious and protracted dis.
cussion and consideration, the eleven
deputies present unanimously reached
the following conclusion:
THE deputies are bound themselves
to take knowledge of the facts con.
cerning the clerical deputation from
New York and now formally brought
to their attention by the lay deputy
from New York.
Upon these facts the constitution of
the board to make preliminary in
qulry into the charges above men
| toned, is lacking in canonical auth
GRITTY; and the canonical defect in.
volyed an error so material as to rem
der it inexpedient and improper for
the deputies present to assume to or
ganize or to act as a board to make
preliminary inquiry into the said
charges under canon g., as it existed
prior to January 1st 1905 even though
it be considered; that any effective ac-
tion be taken under that canon, which
was Superseded on that date"