Page images
PDF
EPUB

to hurry up our business. I therefore move that the Hymnal be made the special order at two o'clock to-day.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. First upon the Calendar is the matter pertaining to the Constitutional Amendment, and also the report of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments, and underlying it all the question of setting off a portion of the territory of Texas. The House of Bishops have already acted on that, and by Message No. 34 sent to us their action for our concurrence. This action has been taken in the House of Bishops for the reason that, if we concur with them, there are certain other things to be done during this session. The territory set off is to be erected into missionary jurisdictions. After that, Bishops are to be nominated to this House. After that, order is to be taken for their consecration. As the matter has been before us now in three General Conventions, covering nine years, and as to-day is the day when it properly comes up for hearing, I hope no order of the day will be allowed to take its place. I would be very glad to know that it could be passed without discussion, as a gentleman suggests, but I understand it will not. I have to move, when I can properly, that the Message of the House of Bishops, No. 34, be concurred in. Will the gentleman withdraw his motion for two o'clock this afternoon?

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. No, sir; I think we had better hold on to it. I do not propose to discuss it, but to get the sense of the House. Let us vote on my motion.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I think you are all aware that there will be a discussion which drives over this business that has been before us now for nine years. It puts off the whole matter, perhaps beyond this Convention, and I hope you will not allow it to take precedence of the other.

Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Virginia. I second the proposition of the gentleman from Georgia for a special committee.

The PRESIDENT. That has been withdrawn.

Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Virginia. I renew it, because I apprehend that, if the question of the Hymnal be opened in this House, it will result in our having no Hymnal at all, and if a special committee is appointed, particularly if it shall be composed of those who object to the present Hymnal, I think by a conference in a day or two we can have such a report as will lead to a unanimous or nearly unanimous conclusion. Otherwise I apprehend the greatest difficulty in coming to any result.

Rev. Mr. STONE, of Delaware. Which motion is before the House? Three or four motions have been made.

The PRESIDENT. The first question is on the motion of Dr. Hall on behalf of the Joint Committee.

Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Virginia. My proposition was an amendment to the motion of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Livingston).

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I rise to a point of order. A motion to recommit is not an amendment, but a privileged motion to be made at any time and taken without debate. A motion to recommit a inatter to another committee is a privileged question superseding the other, and must be taken without debate.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I understand that a motion to recommit to a committee already existing is privileged matter which cannot be debated, but the question whether we shall make a committee in order to recommit, I think can be debated.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. The question has been asked, and considered by the Committee and persons interested in these rules, what they would say to a motion to recommit a

matter to the same Committee. The idea of the gentleman most familiar with the subject is that where a thing has been before a committee and examined, and the House wants it to go to any committee, special or standing, it must be so ordered without debate.

The PRESIDENT. The rule is very distinct that a motion to recommit any subject that has been before a committee must be decided without debate. Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. To recommit to that Committee, not to another committee. Is that not it? It does not say anything

The PRESIDENT. about that.

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. Certainly a fair construction of the rule of order requires the Chair to hold that a motion to recommit is to send back to the same Committee. I apprehend that no parliamentarian ever heard of recommitting a thing to a different Committee. That is new matter. There is no re about it. The re is to send it back to the same Committee. I think there can be no two opinions on that point among parliamentarians.

Mr. COPPEE, of Central Pennsylvania. The rule reads thus :

"There shall be no debate upon a resolution which proposes to refer any matter to a committee."

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. If this matter be not debatable, I would request the Cleri- . cal Deputy from Virginia to withdraw his motion for a single moment.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I think it is debatable.

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. The Chair has decided otherwise.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I rise to a point of order, that the subject-matter of the Hymnal cannot be debated on this motion; but the expediency of the motion can be debated.

The PRESIDENT. There is no resolution before the House, as I understand, which proposes to refer this matter to the same Committee. It is a motion to refer to a special committee, and therefore debatable.

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. Then I wish to state in a few words my object. If gentlemen will carefully read over the resolution reported here from the Upper House, I think it will be found that that resolution, and action under it, have a certain character of finality. I wish the Secretary to read the resolution of the House of Bishops in their message on that subject.

The Secretary read Message No. 32 from the House of Bishops.

per

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. I simply desire the Convention in this matter to act advisedly. It seems to me that the resolution reported from the Upper House gives to the Hymnal presented to us through their liberality a certain character of finality. I think that if we vote in the affirmative on the resolution reported from the Upper House, it will have the effect of an utterance by this body of an absolute and final approval of the Hymnal submitted. I know fectly well that it is within the power of the General Convention at any time to take up the whole matter and review it; but I know also that when any action on the part of the General Convention has received this quality of finality, there is a certain conservative reluctance to touch it again. I know, further, that if any attempt at some future time should be made to review the Hymnal, the action of this body will be pleaded as a bar in the way. I do not believe, moreover, that this body can reach a clear, well-understood determination in this matter without considering certain things con

nected with the history of the production of this Hymnal.

It will be observed that we have two resolutions before us, one touching the Hymnal itself, concerning which a great deal is to be said, and one touching the action of the Committee. That second resolution involves two distinct points. In so far as it is a resolution of thanks to the Committee for their very great trouble,—indeed, I do not think any terms can be too superlative to express that trouble,-and their great liberality, I heartily agree to it. I know individual members of that Committee who are out of pocket several hundred dollars by this work. I for one, and I suppose this whole Convention, will vote a most hearty affirmative. But there is a clause that we thank the Committee for having received suggestions and criticisms, and carefully considered them. Now, sir, that is a very suspicious sentence. Is it not a most extraordinary thing that we should thank a committee of this body for having received our criticisms and suggestions? Is it so great a favor that they have listened to us? There have been objections to the consideration of suggestions. Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I rise to a point

of order.

The PRESIDENT. The hour for entering upon the Calendar has arrived.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I rise to make a suggestion which I think will facilitate the labors of this Convention. I move that the Secretary be directed to have the Calendar printed. I do not know what is on the Calendar, and nobody else can know as at present advised. I think the Convention will find that it will lessen its labors greatly to have the Calendar printed, and I make that motion.

The PRESIDENT. Will the Convention entertain the motion for printing the Calendar?

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I ask if it is not printed in THE DAILY CHURCHMAN, and if so, will not that supply the information?

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. It never has been printed that I know of. It ought to be printed daily, and furnished to each member of the Convention. It costs little, and will add greatly to the promptness of the discharge of business.

Rev. Mr. GILLESPIE, of Michigan. I rise to suggest to the gentleman whether it is not better to wait until after to-morrow. I believe to-morrow is the last day when new matter can be introduced. The Calendar will be more useful if printed after to-morrow.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I ask whether if we come to the order of the day we should not do it at once, and if not, whether anything can take the place of my resolution. I have offered a resolution. A gentleman comes in now with a different matter to cut me off. I give way to the order of the day, but not to that.

The PRESIDENT. I do not see that the motion just made can be entertained without the general consent of the House.

DIOCESE BECOMING A MISSIONARY JURISDICTION.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Then I move that Message No. 34 from the House of Bishops be taken up, and then I shall move that it be concurred in. Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I move that that be referred to the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I desire to say upon the motion to refer to the Committee on Constitution, that this matter has been before the House now for three sessions. It has been referred to the Committee on Constitution, in substance, in these messages, and it has been before them. We have their report. We have the action of the House of Bishops, and now I believe I can convince this

House, if I am allowed to do so, as I suppose I may be, that there should be immediate action, and that here is the place and now is the time to decide this matter, once and for ever.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. Is the motion to refer to a committee debatable?

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. I would suggest to the gentleman from Texas that if he would not interfere with Mr. Livingston's motion to make the Hymnal the order of the day at two o'clock, it is very probable that the matter of Texas can be settled in the meantime. It is one of the clearest cases that can come before us. I do not see what occasion it can give for any large discussion in this House, and as the case is an urgent one requiring prompt attention in order to subsequent action.

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. I rise to a point of order.

The PRESIDENT. If you postpone the point of order now, we shall get on faster.

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. I make my point of order. The question is to refer to a committee. The gentleman is discussing the merits of the question itself.

The PRESIDENT. Which he has the right to do. Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. Touching the point of order, I believe the Chair will agree that Mr. Livingston's motion came before that of the gentleman from Virginia, and it is in connection with that motion and the business of the gentleman from Texas that I would speak. I would submit to him, therefore, whether he feels bound to interfere with the motion to make the Hymnal the order of the day for two o'clock to-day, and, meanwhile, get an opportunity to bring up the Texas matter, and I think the House will put its seal upon it almost immediately.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. It seems to me the matter of Texas may be decided, and then the other motion without interruption.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Let the Hymnal go on the Calendar.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. If there were to be no discussion I would not say a word, but I am aware that there is to be a strong effort made to send this back to the Committee, and there to be considered for I do not know how long, and the effect will be to throw it beyond the action of this Convention at this term, and therefore I beg to state the case of the Diocese of Texas.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I call the attention of the Chair to the twelfth rule. I raise the question of order, whether upon a question to commit or to recommit there can be debate.

The PRESIDENT. I have decided that point of order. This is not a resolution.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. Does the Chair think a motion to recommit and a resolution to recommit are different things?

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. It is the first time it was ever so decided, I am sure.

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. With the permission of the Clerical Deputy from Texas

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I appeal from the decision of the Chair. I cannot allow it to go out to the world that we stumble on mere insignificant things, and that a motion in writing to commit and calling it a resolution changes this order. While I have great respect for the Chair, I appeal from that decision, and say that the true construction of this rule is that no motion or resolution to commit is debatable.

The PRESIDENT. An appeal is made from the decision of the Chair.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. On the question of order I wish to make a suggestion. All this matter was supposed to be settled

when the question was raised before. The idea of those who adopted the rule-at least my idea when we adopted the rule-was that a resolution to refer any matter to a committee should not be debatable. When any matter came before the House for action, and the mover wished the action of the House, and somebody else moved to commit it, that was debatable. When a man rose in his place, and for the first time introduced a matter to the House in the form of a resolution to refer it and did not ask anything but a reference, it is not¦ debatable. Whether you call it a motion or resolution, I repeat, when a matter is presented to the House, and the person who presents it asks of the House to refer it either by motion or resolution, when he does not ask immediate action, but simply asks that it be referred to the Committee, the idea is that it shall not be debatable; but when a member brings a matter for action before the House and it is called up on the Calendar, and somebody moves to take it away from us, and then and there to commit it, that is debatable under the first rule, which says that all these privileged questions are debatable, except a motion to adjourn and a motion to lay on the table, leaving the motion to commit debatable. This very rule, by saying that a motion to recommit is not debatable, implies that a motion to commit a matter under the consideration of the House, which the mover does not ask to be referred, may be debated. The distinction is very marked; and there is a reason for it. We must look at the reason and not at technicalities. When I rise in my place and ask the House to permit me to refer to a committee a particular subject, the rule says it shall not be debated. When I rise in my place here and present a resolution or a Canon or anything else, and ask the House to adopt it, and they enter into the discussion of it, and somebody moves to take it from the consideration of the House and commit it, that motion is debatable. That is all that the rule is, and the Chair so held before, and such was the view, I think, of those familiar with the object, the reason, and the good sense of the rule.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I agree fully with the gentleman from Western New York in the view that he has taken; and so much impressed have I been with the importance of an amendment to that rule to cover the case which now is presented to us, that the Calendar of the Secretary will show that several days ago I gave notice of an amendment to that rule, providing that all messages from the House of Bishops communicating any legislative action on their part should be referred to the appropriate committee without debate. It was to supply just the very omission which now presents itself to the House. I think that all communications from the House of Bishops should be referred, and, of course, that there should be no two debates upon them-one upon the question of reference, and one when the report of the committee should come in.

Rev. M. ROGERS, of Texas. Does not the gentleman agree with me that under the present rule I am entitled to go on?

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. That is not the question now before the House.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the appeal.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. A motion to amend this rule in conformity with the statement I made was considered by the gentlemen who drew up the rule, and by the Chair, and it was settled that the Chair would rule in accordance with the statement I have just made, and it would be just as good as an amendment of the rule. And the Chair so rules, as I

understand, that when a matter is introduced originally by the mover for the action of the House, it cannot be committed on somebody's motion without debate; but where the original mover of a proposition asks that it be referred only and not to be acted on by the House, it is not debatable. The Chair said he did so understand the rule and would so hold: and if he does, I hope the gentleman will withdraw his appeal, for it is altogether the most satisfactory rule.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I have no feeling on this subject, but I suggest, I think without the fear of contradiction, to all who are conversant with parliamentary law, that when a message comes from one House to another it goes, as a matter of course, without debate, to some committee, unless it be made a special order, or by motion laid upon the table; and the reason of the rule is apparent. I understood the Chair to decide that if I had moved to resolve to do this, it could not have been debated, and because I moved to do it, it was debatable. I am sure the Chair upon reflection will see that that ruling cannot be sustained.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair very concisely stated the determination to which he had come, not giving any reason for it. The reason has been stated by the gentleman from Western New York upon the appeal. It will be recollected that the Chair decided the case, put it out of his own jurisdiction, and it is before the House. A motion to commit any matter which is already before the House waiting its action, the Chair has decided is debatable because it brings up the whole merits of the case. It brings up the whole point whether the House is prepared to go on with the consideration of a subject upon which it has already entered, or to put it out of its own power, and send it to a committee. That includes, as the gentleman from Texas states in this case, the fate of a measure, and therefore the Chair decided as he has done. The question is on the appeal.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I beg leave respectfully to differ with the Chair upon what he stated was his ground. This House is witness of what the Chair said, and the Chair did say emphatically, that if I had moved a resolution

The PRESIDENT. No, no, the Chair did not state any such nonsense as that.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I appeal from the recollection of the Chair to the House, but that is immaterial. I want now to hear from the Chair upon this point. When a message comes from the House of Bishops, and no disposition and order has been taken, do I understand the Chair to say that a motion to refer that message is debatable ?

The PRESIDENT. Messages that comeMr. BATTLE, of North Carolina. I rise to a point of order, the first one I ever raised in my life. When this case was called first on the Calendar, Mr. Rogers had a right to the floor, and no man had a right to make any motion without his giving way.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. The gentleman will make his point of order when he gets the floor. I am on a question of order. I am perfectly willing to have a lecture from the Deputy from North Carolina on the question of order; but he must get the floor first to make it, and I am now on the floor upon a point of order. I want to hear the ruling of the Chair as to what the rule of the House is upon a message from the House of Bishops, whether a motion to refer it is debatable.

The PRESIDENT. That question is not before us. That is the ruling of the Chair upon that point. Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I did move to refer it to the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution.

The PRESIDENT. This matter of the message of the House of Bishops has been placed on the Cal

endar, and comes up by an order of the House, together with sundry other matters, at twelve o'clock to-day. The question is upon the appeal.

Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut. I move to lay the appeal on the table.

The motion was agreed to.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Mr. President, As everything involved in this question is to be considered, and legitimately considered, on this motion to refer, I will ask the Secretary to read the memorial of the Bishop and Council of the Diocese of Texas, as it is a part of the record.

The Secretary read as follows:

MEMORIAL OF THE BISHOP AND COUNCIL OF THE DIOCESE OF TEXAS.

"To the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of Ame

rica:

"The undersigned, the Bishop of the Diocese of Texas and the Council of said Diocese, by its duly authorized representatives in the premises, as appears by a certified copy of the proceedings of the last annual Council, hereunto attached, respectfully represent and give this Convention to be informed 'that the territory of said Diocese of Texas is too large for due episcopal supervision by the Bishop of said Diocese, and do pray the General Convention to set off from said Diocese all that portion of its present territory lying westerly and southerly of the counties of Matagorda, Wharton, Colorado, Fayette, Bastrop, Travis, Burnet, and Lampasas, and northerly and westerly of the counties of Lampasas, Coryell, McLennan, Limestone, Freestone, Anderson, Smith, Gregg, and Marion; and that the said territory so cut off may thereafterwards constitute such missionary jurisdictions as the House of Bishops may determine.

"And for further information relative hereto, the Bishop and Council of said Diocese do give the General Convention further to be informed that said Diocese is now found to contain about 270,000 square miles of territory, of which about 200,000 are embraced in 167 organized counties, and the balance in territory not yet organized, but rapidly filling up with inhabitants and soon to be largely organized into thriving counties, towns, and cities; that the number of inhabitants of the Diocese is now about 1,200,000, exclusive of Indians, of which, should this petition be granted, and the territory so set off be constituted into two Missionary Jurisdictions, according to the further prayer of your petitioners to the House of Bishops, over 500,000 would be residents of said Diocese as then limited; over 400,000 would be residents of the Northern, and over 200,000 of the Western Missionary Jurisdictions.

"Of the 167 counties, 57 would be within the then Diocese, 55 within the Northern, and 55 within the Western Missionary Jurisdictions-the tract of unorganized territory being divided between said Missionary Jurisdictions.

Of

"There are now within the Diocese 39 parishes, 34 missions, and 32 presbyters and deacons. these, 26 parishes, 15 missions, and 20 presbyters and deacons would be left within the Diocese; 4 parishes, 9 missions, and 5 presbyters and deacons would be within the Northern, and 9 parishes, 9 missions, and 9 presbyters and deacons within the Western Missionary Jurisdictions.

"The railroads are few and far apart, accommodating but widely-scattered threads of country. The means of locomotion of the greater portion of the country are still the stage-coach, the private carriage, and the saddle.

"There are great tracts of inhabited country waiting for the blessings of the Church, where its services were never heard and the foot of its Bishop

has never gone, simply because, being human, he is confined to the limits of human possibility.

"Six years ago, by the unanimous voice of its Bishop, Clergy, and Laity, the Diocese of Texas asked of the General Convention such legislation as should give relief from these overwhelming burdens. The General Convention then responded by a radical change of the organic law of the Church, but from this change the Diocese found itself utterly unable to derive any benefit. Still it could not bring itself within its terms.

"Three years ago, by the unanimous voice of Bishop, Clergy, and Laity, it again petitioned the General Convention for relief, and at that time indicated substantially the same method as now herein prayed for.

"Again the General Convention responded by initiating the proposed amendment to the Constitution now pending before this Convention (allowing portions of a Diocese too large for the due supervision of its Bishop to be set off into missionary jurisdiction).

"One year ago, at the annual session of the Council of the Diocese, when this proposition for the amendment of the Constitution came before it, the Diocese not only gave its consent, but again, by unanimous voice, passed a resolution relating thereto, in words following, viz.:

"Resolved, That the Deputies from this Diocese to the next General Convention are instructed to urge the passage of the said Constitutional Amendment by that body, and that certified copies of this resolution be furnished by the Secretary to each of said Deputies before the session of said General Convention.'

"And now again, after six years of consideration, and for the same reasons as heretofore, though growing constantly more and more important, the said Diocese again lays its condition before the General Convention, and prays for relief; and not that it may be allowed to abandon its legitimate responsibility or shirk its work, but because here are broad and fertile fields abundantly ready for the seed, or ripe for the harvest of the Church, which it can neither plant, gather, nor abandon.

66

"ALEX. GREGG,

Bishop of Texas.

BENJ. A. ROGERS,
W. R. RICHARDSON,
S. D. DAVENPORT,
S. M. BIRD,

GEORGE W. JACKSON,

Clerical Deputies.

Lay Deputy.

DIOCESE OF TEXAS.

[blocks in formation]

"The Committee to whom was referred so much of the Bishop's address as relates to increased Episcopal supervision for and a reduction of the territory of the Diocese of Texas, report that, after a careful examination thereof, they fully coincide with his opinion therein expressed. We believe that the interests of the Church do imperatively demand such legislation as shall give to the Church far more Episcopal supervision than it is possible for any one Bishop to render.

"Our territory is about 250,000 square miles, with 165 counties. Our railroads accommodate but mere far-scattered threads of country. Our population is

some eleven or twelve hundred thousand souls, and to us it is clear that our obligations as a Church are utterly beyond our ability as a Diocese. The services of our Church should be carried to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of villages, hamlets, and neighborhoods within our borders where now they are never heard.

"Our records show that to divide our Diocese into two or more is canonically impossible. To avail ourselves of the services of an Assistant Bishop, and support him, is equally impossible, and, if that could be done, is not desirable.

"To meet these urgent wants, our Bishop recommends that the next General Convention be petitioned by this Diocese to set off all that portion of this Diocesan Territory that lies westerly and northerly of the following described lines, metes, and bounds-to wit: Beginning on Matagorda Bay, at the southwesterly corner of Matagorda County, thence northwesterly, on the westerly lines of the Counties of Matagorda, Wharton, Colorado, Fayette, Bastrop, and Travis, and Burnet to its point of contact with the Colorado River; thence up the middle of said river to the northwesterly corner of Lampasas County, and thence northeasterly along the northerly lines of Lampasas, Coryell, McLennan, Limestone, Freestone, Anderson, Smith, Rusk, Gregg, Harrison, and Marion Counties, to the easterly boundary line of the State; and thence following said easterly boundary line of the State of Texas southerly to the Gulf of Mexico, and thence following the southerly boundary line of said State, along said Gulf, westerly to the place of beginning on the southwesterly corner of Matagorda County; and that the territory lying outside the aforesaid line be taken under the care of the General Church; and that the House of Bishops be further petitioned to erect the same into missionary jurisdictions and to elect Missionary Bishops therefor.

"Your Committee therefore recommend the passage of the following resolutions :

"Resolved, That the Bishop of the Diocese be requested, and our deputation to the next General Convention be instructed, to petition that body in the premises, setting forth that the territory of the Diocese is too large for the one episcopal supervision of the Bishop of this Diocese, and praying that said Convention will set off all that portion of the territory of this Diocese outside the line above described, the metes and bounds as above set out.

"Resolved, That the Bishop and said deputation are hereby empowered, in behalf and in the name of this Diocese, to do any and every thing necessary to carry out the foregoing purposes. "A true copy from the minutes of the Council. W. R. RICHARDSON, "Secretary."

"Attest:

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I now ask the Secretary to turn to the questions put to the Constitutional Amendment Committee, and read the report thereon.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I suggest that the whole report need not be read. We have it printed in our hands.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I will read a portion of it: "The Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, to whom was referred a resolution directing them to consider and report to this Convention whether any constitutional amendment is necessary to empower the General Convention of this Church to set off a missionary territory from the bounds of a Diocese, at the request of said Diocese, duly made known, have given full consideration to the subject, and respectfully report.

[ocr errors]

The first part of the report takes up the interest of

the Board of Missions in this subject, and here is the opinion:

"The Committee are of opinion, therefore, that it does not require an amendment of the Constitution to empower the General Convention, through the agency of the Board of Missions, and by the processes marked out in the Canons and in the Constitution of the Society, which may be considered to be the Constitution of the Board of Missions, with the consent of the Bishop and Conventions of any organized Diocese, to occupy or set apart any portion of such Diocese as missionary ground. This would be a full response to the terms of the resolution referred to the Committee; but it is proper to point out that this does not recognize the right of the Convention, even with the consent or at the request of the Bishop and Convention of any Diocese, permanently to dismember a Diocese. Your Committee are induced to add this because it has come to their knowledge that perhaps something like this has very innocently been done, but without any committal of the Convention to its lawfulness."

There have been certain Dioceses organized heretofore, of which I will speak by-and-by. Now, as bearing on the report of this Committee, I beg to state still further that the proposition has been brought before the Board of Missions, from whom the material funds come for the support of the Episcopate in the portion of the territory to be set off, and that Board recommend this action :

"The undersigned, the Committee appointed by the Board of Missions by the second resolution, beg leave to lay before the House of Deputies the following action of the Board at a meeting held in St. Ann's Church, in this city, on Thursday, October 22:

66

'Resolved, That in view of all the facts set forth in the memorial of the Diocese of Texas, and the pressing necessity of the said Diocese for the relief therein asked, this Board of Missions do recommend the granting of the prayer of said memorial, and that the House of Bishops do, at its present session, erect two missionary districts, and nominate to the House of Deputies two missionary Bishops therefor, according to the terms of said petition.

"Resolved, That a committee be appointed by the Chair to communicate the foregoing resolutions to both Houses of the General Convention."

The Right Rev. Bishops Doane, Young, and Tuttle were appointed such committee, and here is the proper attestation.

Six years ago the Diocese of Texas came into Gen eral Convention, and for the first time made known its condition. For the first time were brought to the eye of the Church the facts that the map now before you shows, and the other facts relating to the working thereof. At that time the Constitution of the Church required that there should be some forty parishes left in a Diocese when a portion was set off; that there should be fifteen selfsupporting in the new Diocese to be formed. The view taken at that time was that there must be some legislation_that should allow the division of the Diocese of Texas into two or more Dioceses; and under the pressure of the extreme necessity of the Diocese, six years ago was initiated the constitutional change that allows a division without the slightest reference to the parishes being self-supporting, a division that shall leave but twelve parishes in the old and but six in the new Diocese.

But there was at that time a provision which annulled, as far as we were concerned, the whole change. It was, that before a Diocese could be divided there should be secured the support of the Bishop, construed to mean a fund or a subscription for a fund, the interest of which shall support the

« PreviousContinue »