New-York tribune., 1906-11-20

-r REV. DR. ALGERNON S. CRAPsEY-
rso has been suspended by the Episcopal Court
OF Reviews for heretical teachings.
ramsey al Rochester. Bishop Walker said that
act Of personal regard for DR.. Crapsey he
-0uId not make the document public at this
RE In announcing the decision, Bishop Walk
rssye out the following statement:
TIE court having taken the matter under ad-
-,ssnsut and impressed with a profound sense
Of its responsibility in discharging the serious
ATTY cast upon IL, met from time TO time to con-
tder the appeal After full consideration OF
tse oresti0ns presented. II determined, with the
rrsniplous concurrence Of its members that the
Judgment Of the trial court should be affirmed.
The conferences Of the court were held Octo-
hsr 90 November 2 and November Is, and the
decision finally formulated on the last named
&sfe IN compliance with the canon which re
qutres that the decision Of a court Of review
sbal be in writing, signed by the members unit
.ng therein and that Il shall distincly specify
ne grounds OF the decision the court forInu-
lsteG these grounds at considerable length,
Erned the decision IN duplicate, and instructed
ths clerk 70 deliver the same personally TO the
Bishop Of Western New York and the Rev DR..
crapssy.
II vas stated by Bishop Walker to-day that,
contrary To the general belief there could be no
appeal aiken from the decision of the court Of
review.
DR. CRAPsEY DECLINES TO TALK.
Rochester. Nov 19-The probability that
Dr. Crapsey will recant any of the opinions
which have led him into his ecclesiastical case
which may be regarded as settled with the dec
s-aton Of the court Of review. or that he will
IN any way defect from the position he has taken
srs considered so slight as not 10 be worth con-
Eideration When he was seen to-day and told
Of the verdict Of the court he said It was the
first intirnation he had received. AS DR.. Crap
sey had rot then been officially informed he
would not discuss the matter at any length.
Furthermore. he intimated that even when the
o1cal finding Of the court Of review was
csiVed BY him he would not have any comment
70 make But later. after he has had time to
consult with his counsel. he viii issue full
statement which viii plainly set forth his posi-
uon in the controversy. AS 10 the plans he may
nave made for the future, in the light Of the de-
sSlon to-day. Dr.. Crapsey also declined TO talk
1he following is q summary OF the decision OF
NE court OF review.
F:rst-The ecclesiastical court Of the Diocese
" " "estern New York had Jurisdiction to try
nent 81 " -O -
second-The trial court was legally authorized
= !. e9htorr1liIy with the canon ana ordinances Of
re diocese Of Western New York
s he finding Of the court is that the
49, S- AZ hhaElug statements charged and ad-
tt-lteu 70 nave been made by him, violated and
u.oA' certain declarations made by him at the
ne -ao ot Els ordination involving the finding or
NlsI vas the doctrine Of The Church on the sub
We TO which the declarations related
.four'n-The court is OF the opinion that
SSS5se one or the presentment charging the
ay.alhs aud teaching by the accused. publicly
doctrines 10 he'll
:! me church. was not. as claimed by counsel
.4eg ehsrge Of such teaching by the delivery
" - tne sermons mentioned IN the presentment
80 80 C4etse' falIly construed. charges two dis
.t 80 acts as violations Of the canon relating 10
- ISachings; hrsJ, the delivery of the ser
II1aSls and second, their publication in the year
svb Ihls contention is important only by rea-
~ OF ne fact that the conviction under charge
.a' vas based exclusively on the publication
~. s' mons, and II Is claimed that although the
80 statements were contained in the book as
= ue sermons, nevertheless, as the conviction
-l-st oe OF the specific act charged nd as the
S.esge Is based upon the delivery Of the sermons,
&c hoi OF the publication oc the book the con-
,.,'4on should be reversed. The Introductory
..--eeaQon IN the present states among other
a.lgs that during the years 1904 and 1865 the
- 80 ee4lFeied a Series or sermons, which
= NistesiL Ter caused 10 be published in book
-;.A' etc. and that said book was published
80 @no circulated with the permission consent
- s01oTlzaJl0n Of the said Presbyterv'. In
- specification under the charge II is claimed
-. 80 ne accused did openly advisedly, publicly
- privately utter ayOw, declare and teach
s-.I..ee contrary TO those held by the Protes-
- - EpScopal Church IN the United States Of
ss.e!lea, oy the delivery OF the sermons there
ploAshed IN said book. etc. The answer
s1e 1e accused and the course Of the trial in
So mar both the accused and his counsel at
- H'he understood that the publication of the
a. = Nas an offence charged in the presentuent
Ne @.e ma the statements in the book were re-
re-.+oA u+oA 10 support the charge. There was n
,.~osFIsy between counsel whether the book
-. N!lole should be admitted in evidence or il
r. "4;elner the whole Of any sermon in the
tSsA Nhlch contained the passages set forth in
vss.lbIesehtfnent was admissible But no sug-
- was made that the publication OF the
r. NsS not an act covered by the charge.
nuh,saIt ,so.it mat the charge does not alege the
TIM e@elon @ Of the book as an offence is not, we
oon-. he court Of review sustains the trial
cas- ~ ~ terusing further adjournment of the
So. oh April p, 1906
eour, :. ne court Of review sustains the trial
G. rs.,IAe nc matter Of deciding on the credibiity
cou-, - ii.-Ihe court Of review sustains the trial
behsl. ~ ,llusihg 10 receive evidence offered in
sas. .,S'Eey case has attracted wide attention
-gs!lrsos publication Of DR. C-aDsev.s book on
nr,,; ana Politics" and also since he s,.,,eT
sssiast t, sermons IN which, Il is charged
@E-. 'ia ns -a,,ol..