New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-10-14

81 3 e u BIZ -
THE REV. DIR. LEIGHTON PARKS.
can Church" said DR.. Parks when some
Of the members. seeming a controversy
laughed nervously.
The speaker told the delegates that he
and others in the convention would feel
compelled to block any revision and en-
richment of the prayer book rather than
TO permit the possibility Of a change or
name by the commission. He took up
the arguments Of the Rev. Edward l..
Parsons. Of California. who had spoken
OF the need of changes.
The gentleman in all of his illustra-
tons never mentioned the title page, he
exclaimed. 1t was then that he spoke OF
the name Protestant as q treasure OF
the Church.
Stirred by Speech.
Supporters and. perhaps, even in great
er measure. opponents of the cause for
which the ST. Bartholomew rector stood
were stirred by his speech. Many tried to
shut off any discussion Of the possibility
of change OF name in the commission.
Dr. Walter c. Whitaker, Of Tennessee,
said: Whether we are for or against the
change Of name, this is not the place TO
fight IL OUT
DR.. Charles Martin Niles, of Atlantic
CITY, said he thought the convention
up the title page
on the other hand. the Rev. William
Cleveland Hicks, of the Maryland Do
cese, maintained that, since the Mckim
amendment was lost, the commission
would have a perfect right TO consider
the name question.
The Rev. Edward l.. Parsons. Of Cali
fornia. the diocese which presented the
memorial for the commission, sale that
his state did not seek 10 do things by
il direction The diocese, he said. had
presented another memorial in regard TO
the change in name. but he asserted that
the commission in question was a mat
ter entirely distinct from this.
| DR.. McKim arose on a question OF priv
! nege. He said he spoke for peace.
] I'VE are not the leaders Of the agita-
| ton We did not begin the discussion"
/ he said.
| He explained with a great deal OF
| earnestness that the question Of church
name was one which touched himself
and many delegates closely. They re
garded il. he said. with reverence.
Judge James Mcconnell, Of Louisiana,
took up the legal aspect of the question.
He said that the record OF the defeat OF
the McKim amendment would have more
weight in governing the prayer book
commission than any opinion expressed
on the floor.
! George Wharton Pepper, Of Philadel-
phia. a High Churchman. but the recorder
of the McKim amendment when first pro-
posed, saw an opportunity to reverse the
/ result Of the original vote. He explained
/ that i'm his opinion many of the mem
/ hers had not fully understood the amend
ment when it was offered and that now
/ they could all see it offered a way out Of
difficulty by removing the question OF
church name from the scope OF the com
| missions work.
/ He asked for a motion to reconsider
which won The motion 10 adopt the
amendment of DR.. McKim, after an enolt
/ to table it, was carried but there was a
considerable volume of noes when the
vote was taken.
The original motion for the revision
and enrichment" of the prayer book was
| then carried by reclamation.
At the end OF the session several mem
| bers Of the High Churcn party said that
I'm their opinion the passage of the McKim
| catflinU the
question for this session, had made dis
cussion of it on the floor of the conven-
| ton inevitable.
on the other nand, 1t vas pointed out
by adherents Of the amendment that the
issue OF change in Church name would
have 10 be discussed upon its own merits
without utilization or connection with any
| other subject