New-York tribune., 1920-01-24

present time opportune, with the
eagerness of the people for SYM
pathy~an leadership. for the Church
to meet their need? %
Bishop Burch in reply reviewed tn.
body of DR.. Grants defense, expressed
his own high opinion of personal af-
fecton for his brother clergymen and
concluded by Offering his advice as
"your friend and Bishop"
The letter is as follows:
"Let me say. first of all, that this
letter is written with the distinct
understanding that l, as Bishop of
tho Diocese of New York, have no
law Of the Church behind me on
which to proceed against you on
either of the points named in your
letter, even though I wished to in
augurate such proceedings, but that
bishop, believing that have clear
duty in the premises to offer such
counsel as l may deem advisable.
IL write not only as one who knew
you long before l became a Bishop,
nine years ago, but as one who has
regarded you as friend, who has
held you in esteem in the past for
your character, your fearlessness,
your passion for humanity, your
generosity and for your desire In
especial to bring the Church closer
10 the common people and to those
not in afiliation or understanding
with the Church and the Church's
Iii, and work-in particular to the
unchurched and the overborne.
Holds Him In Affection
For you. as a man, permit me to
say that / have not only the friend
liest Of feelings, but that have
entertained a genuine affection for
you through many years. I have
disagreed with many of your utter
ances and have deplored the fact
that on several occasions such utter
ances have been of a character cal
culated to leave the impression upon
unthinking, as we'll as upon clearly
reasoning folk that there was some
lurking spirit of disloyalty, not only
to the Church in which you are
clergyman, but q lack of full loyalty
to the civil government. You have
said more than once that you are not
Socialist, nor radical, nor an ad-
vocatc of force or violence, but that
you believe In free speech, and that
you inaugurated your Forum, in con-
nection with the Church OF the AS
cension, as place where all classes
Of people could find voice and have
an opportunity for the expression Of
their opinions on social, economic,
political, religious and other issues,
81 have found myself increasingly
regretting the fact that the general
public, and in particular the ad-
herents of the Episcopal Church,
should have had cause to question
Iowa 1tyr 70
advocacy Of socialistic or radical
tendencies.
"Your vestry, in their report on
recent happenings, after expressing
their own views in opposition to
yours as to the practice of deporta-
ton IN proper cases with due legal
process and their appreciation of the
great principle Of freedom of speech
and of discussion of thought, fun
damental to all just government and
having approved of your right to ex-
press your own opinions freely and
fearessly, the only limitations being
such as are imposed by law and the
proprletles on every person, conclude
by stating:
"Sympathy, Not Collusion"
"'We regret the mention Of the or
rival Of the Mayflower and the land
ing of the Pilgrim Fathers in con-
nection with the sailing of the Bu-
ford carrying the deported aliens as
having been highly unfortunate, the
misunderstanding and the misnter-
probation Of the allusion easy and not
unnatural.'
II am quite ready to accept the
report and the conclusion of your
vestry az mine, with the exception
hereinafter noted. M
AS to- tho use of the parish house,
your vestry finds that you had the
necessary authority to allow the use
Of the parish house as an assembly
and starting point for the parade on
was planned as an appeal for the
amnesty of all so-called political
prisoners. In regard to this use Of
the parish house as starting point
for such parade, your vestry state
that "it would have been wiser for
the rector to have consulted with tho
vestrymen or with some committee
Of the vestry,' and they suggest that
when similar occasion arises in the
future that course be pursued.
Once again your bishop willingly
rests his counsel on the conclusion
of your vestry.
'In q word. let me state, as your
friend and Bishop, that no one prizes
more highly than myself the great
principle of freedom of speech and
of discussion, and no one deplores
more than do | the fact that freedom
of speech is so frequently abused and
becomes the foundation for license to
utter scditlous opinions, which are
clearly and unmistakably subversive
of reverence for constituted author
ity, or, it you please, law and order.
Such abuse of freedom Of speech is
obviously matter for the civil
authority to deal with. In these days
Of unrest, uncertainty and difficulty
every true American citizen should
be most careful about words or acts
that in any least particular point a
spirit Of disloyalty to tho govern
ment.
Objects to Use of Church
II come now to the last and to
what Is, for me, as your Bishop, the
most important point to deal with.
Both you and your vcstry by clear
implication take the ground that the
Bishop of the diocese has no right
whatever to deal with the use Of
the Church Of the Ascension for
olher than reNglouS purposes. Let
me state that on May 26, 1929, pre-
else y in the language at present
used in the consecration of any
church or chapel in the Protestant
Episcopal Church in tho United
States Of America, the late Bishop
Hobart, then Bishop Of New York
consecrated the Church of the AS
ccnslon and set said church apart
from all unhallowed, worldly and
common uses and solemnly dedi-
Gated said church To the u.nrs In cf