Page images
PDF
EPUB

of the last General Convention, they will see under what standing order the House has heretofore organized. They will observe that in it there is no direct provision for the election of a President. I ask that the action of the House be now taken on the three resolutions reported from the Committee on Canons. The first is the adoption of the order. Will the Chair put the question on that?

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the first resolution reported.

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I wish to propose a slight amendment to that. Where it provides for the appointment of a Vice-President by ballot, I would add after "ballot" the words "but if there be but one nomination, the ballot may be dispensed with," which may save a great deal of trouble.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I will answer the gentleman by saying that that came before the Committee, and after due deliberation they concluded that it was better not to have a viva voce election under any circumstances, but that the sense of the House could always be better obtained by having a ballot, and that the little time lost in taking the ballot would be justified by the result. Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I withdraw the amendment.

The first resolution was adopted.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. The second resolution is

"That this order, so far as it provides for the election of a Vice-President, be effective from this time, and that the House proceed to the election of a Vice-President to-morrow, Tuesday, at eleven A.M."

In regard to that, I am authorized to state, by our Presiding Officer, that it meets with his most hearty approval, and that he is very desirous of being relieved from the weighty duties which have been imposed upon him, and which will be imposed upon him for the remainder of this session, by the election of a Vice-President, to aid him in their perform

ance.

[blocks in formation]

The second resolution was adopted.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. The third resolution is :

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That the following clause be added to Section 1, Canon 1, of Title III., of the Digest:

"[4.] The rules and orders of each House of the General Convention shall be in force in the ensuing General Convention until the organization thereof, and until they be amended or repealed."

The resolution was agreed to.

THE CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION.

Rev. Mr. GETZ, of Pittsburgh. I ask leave to introduce a resolution that I think will give rise to no debate whatever. It is in reference to a proper observance of the Centenary of American Independence. I understand some action has been or will be taken in the House of Bishops. I offer this resolution, with the consent of the House, bearing on that point:

"Whereas, By an act of the Congress of the United States provision has been made for the due celebration of the centennial anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, in the year 1876, in the city of Philadelphia, where that Declaration was originally published to the world, and where it is right and proper that all the people of the land should, directly or indirectly, take part therein, because all share in the blessings and privileges

which, as its consequence, followed that memorable event; and,

"Whereas, Amongst those blessings and privileges, religious liberty is of inexpressible value, and has been most fruitful in the opportunity for the development of spiritual life among the American people. Therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Bishops be, and it is hereby, respectfully requested to appoint such services and observances for that occasion as may in its godly judgment be best adapted to revive among the people of the Protestant Episcopal Church a lively and grateful remembrance of the men whose trials, sacrifices, and noble works brought into being the United States of America, and secured to the Church of God the goodly heritage that it here enjoys.

"Resolved, That the members of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America are hereby exhorted, in their several spheres and in all becoming ways, to exhibit their sense of the personal advantages derived from the blessings of civil and religious liberty as enjoyed by them, by promoting according to their opportunities the success of the centennial celebration of the Declaration of Independence, and to give to the same in their respective parishes and Dioceses a public recognition of the grace and goodness of God in securing with the civil the ecclesiastical independence of our land."

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I presume no one will object to it in that form.

Rev. Mr. GETZ, of Pittsburgh. It ought not to lead to discussion.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I want to move the indefinite postponement of this resolution. That is my motion. I move that the resolution, just brought up by the gentleman from Pittsburgh, be indefinitely postponed; and I would like, as a motion for indefinite postponement is capable of debate and discussion, to be allowed by this House to give my reasons for it.

Mr. BATTLE, of North Carolina. Does not this go on the Calendar ?

Rev. Mr. GETZ, of Pittsburgh. I hope the Secretary will read the resolutions again so that the House may understand them.

The PRESIDENT. Any resolution objected to must go on the Calendar and come up in its place.

CONVOCATION OF CANTERBURY.

The SECRETARY. I wish to present a letter which I have received from the Convocation of Canterbury.

"THE VICARAGE, ALTON, STAFFORDSHIRE,
"September 18, 1874.

"TO THE REV. W. S. PERRY, D.D., SECRETARY TO THE GENERAL CONVENTION:

"It was ordered by the lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury, February 15, 1870, that the Prolocutor should be authorized to send copies of the Chronicle of Convocation' to the General Convention of the American Church and other synodical assemblies at his discretion.

"In accordance with this vote the Venerable Prolocutor has commissioned me to forward the 'Chronicles of Convocation,' containing the whole record of the proceedings of the last Convocation, to yourself as Secretary, to be by you duly presented to the General Convention.

"I have the greatest pleasure in carrying out his request, and I trust that the action of the Lower House in this matter may be taken as a token of brotherly feeling and Churchman-like sympathy by the members of the General Convention.

"Humbly praying that the guidance of the Incarnate Wisdom may be with your deliberations, and

prosper them to His glory, I have the honor to be, Rev. and dear Sir,

"Your faithful brother,

"WILLIAM FRASER,

"Proc. Cler. Dioc. Lichfield." The several volumes of the Chronicle not having reached me by mail, I take the liberty of showing that they are, a copy having been forwarded from a brother clergymen for that purpose.

I have also the following communication:

"SOCIETY FOR THE PROPAGATION OF 66 THE GOSPEL IN FOREIGN PARTS, "20 Duke Street, Westminster, s. w., "9 June, 1874.

"MY DEAR SIR: I am desired by the Standing Committee to offer, through you, to the General Convention of the American Church our most cordial thanks for three volumes of Historical Collections, relating to Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, which have arrived with an inscription informing us that they are the gift of the Gene ral Convention.

"The intrinsic value of the documents to all who find pleasure and profit in watching the early trials and growth, under God's blessing, of a branch of the Church of Christ is very great indeed. Future generations will have reason to be grateful to those who have preserved and handed down so instructive a record; and the work of your printers is admirable for its accuracy and beauty. We in England have a special reason for satisfaction in that we are freed from much of the anxiety with which many of these papers were regarded, so long as they remained in manuscript only, and in our custody.

"I trust that you may be enabled to complete your useful but extensive task in editing the remaining volumes.

"I am, dear sir, yours very faithfully,
"W. T. BULLOCK.

"REV. DR. W. S. PERRY, "Sec. of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, Geneva, New York, U. S."

[ocr errors]

THE CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION.

Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. I rise to a point of order. I do not know whether it is too late to make it; if it is not, I rise to this point of order that the resolutions introduced by the Deputy from Pittsburg (Rev. Mr. Getz) cannot be entered upon the Calendar, being new matter, which is excluded by an order of this House.

Rev. Mr. GETZ, of Pittsburgh. I think the consent of the House was asked to the introduction of the resolutions, and consent was given.

The PRESIDENT. I did not hear any consent. Rev. Mr. GETZ, of Pittsburgh. I stated what the proposition was, and asked consent to offer it. I stated the substance of the paper before I offered it, and consent was given from the fact that there was no opposition to the introduction of the resolutions. I did not hear a single voice in opposition to the introduction of the resolutions.

Mr. ATWATER, of Minnesota. I think there would have been large opposition had the contents been made known.

The PRESIDENT. So do I. I should have opposed it myself for one.

Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. What disposition has been made of my point of order?

The PRESIDENT. I have not made any as yet. Mr. BATTLE, of North Carolina. If there is any doubt about the reception of the resolutions, I move a reconsideration of the question.

Rev. Mr. GETZ, of Pittsburgh. Allow me to suggest that that is entirely out of order. The measure has already been entered on the Calendar by

order of the Chair, as I understand. I do not think it is possible for the House to go back.

The PRESIDENT. It was a misapprehension on the part of the Chair. I had forgotten that it was too late to introduce new matter.

Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. Not only so; but this resolution asks the concurrence of the House of Bishops. It is certainly new matter, and cannot be entered upon the Calendar of the House now.

The PRESIDENT. I think on that state of facts it cannot be introduced without a vote of two-thirds of the members present. There was no vote taken on it at all, and of course all that proceeded without that vote is null and void.

Rev. Mr. GETZ, of Pittsburgh. I bope, then, that a vote may be taken. I am very well satisfied that two-thirds of the House or more will agree to the introduction of the resolutions. I can see no possible objection to their introduction.

The PRESIDENT. That would itself be a motion which would either have to be debated or lie over. The motion must lie over until tomorrow.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Is it not necessary that we should take that vote whether it will be entertained at all? The vote should be taken at the time it is to be introduced as to whether it can be entertained at all.

The PRESIDENT. That will lead to the necessity of having a debate on the resolution, contrary to the order which says that any resolution which is objected to must lie over until the next day.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. My point

is whether it is in order to introduce a resolution at all, whether it is before the House to lie over, unless it is received by the House. Under that rule of order, we must, by a two-thirds vote, consent to admit the motion, or else it cannot be entered on the journal at all.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Unless there is a motion to suspend the rule to introduce a resolution, it is entirely irregular.

The PRESIDENT. That is true.

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. I call for the order of the day.

Rev. Mr. GETZ, of Pittsburgh. I understand the Chair has decided that the matter of my resolutions shall lie over until to-morrow.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair has so decided.

GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. At the request of Rev. Dr. Shelton, Chairman of the Committee on the General Theological Seminary, I present and read this report:

The Committee on the General Theological Seminary, to whom was referred the Board of Trustees for the past three years, respectfully report: That having carefully examined the same they are gratified to find the institution in an unusually prosperous condition. The number of students in 1872 was 78; in 1873, 70; in 1874, 73. The buildings and grounds were never in a better condition than at present. Gas has been introduced into all the rooms in both buildings. Two stories of the west wing of the west building have been converted into a spacious, well-lighted, and nearly fire-proof department for the reception of the Seminary's large and valuable collection of books, the third story being reserved exclusively for pamphlets and papers. A new chapel, arranged after the models of the chapels in the colleges of the English

universities, has also been fitted up in

the east building. These much-needed improvements have cost $9,000, of which amount over $5,000 were contributed by trustees, and other friends of the institution, in response to an appeal made by the acting Dean, the Rev. Prof. Seymour. The finances of the institution seem to be slowly

but steadily improving; but the Committee are sorry to report that the professors, in the discharge of their arduous and important duties, are serving the Church on salaries utterly insufficient for their proper support. The trustees, in their triennial report, truly say:

"One thing is earnestly to be desired, and this is in the power of the members of the Church to supply, namely; adequate provision for the support of the professors of the institution.

"Your Committee call attention to this matter in the hope that a large number of the Dioceses may be led to make an annual contribution through their several rectors to the funds of this great theological school of the Church, which has already sent forth eight hundred well-trained men into the ranks of the sacred ministry.

"The Committee further report that they have prepared the accompanying list of Clerical and Lay Trustees, which after being passed upon by this House is to be sent to the House of Bishops for its approval. This list has been compiled from the list prefixed to the proceedings of the Board of Trustees, from Convention journals, and from Canonical certificates received from the following twenty-nine Dioceses: Alabama, Albany, California, Central New York, Central Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Long Island, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Western New York, and Wisconsin.

"The Committee report the following resolution and recommend its adoption:

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That the Trustees named in the accompanying list be confirmed as members of the Board of the General Theological Seminary for the next three years."

With the permission of the House, Mr. President, I move the adoption of the resolution in order that this list may go up at once to the House of Bishops.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I should like to know whether the Committee have any report of the number of times the Trustees have attended, or whether they can inform the House how many of these Trustees have regularly attended, and how many have not. I think we should then vote intelligently. We have heard quite a number of complaints about the Theological Seminary, and I hold that our agents, the Trustees to whom we confided it, are the parties in fault, if there be any fault-they who have the appointment of the professors and the oversight of the whole institution. Surely, if there is any censure, it rests upon them. I should be very glad for one to know whether the Committee has ascertained how many of these trustees have attended regularly, and how many have not, or whether they have just taken the names of those who are on the list which will be handed down from generation to generation without their appearing.

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. If any information be desired, I will simply say that it is not possible for the Committee of this House to go into that matter. Under one of our Canons, each Diocesan Convention sends a certified list, giving the names which it has nominated to this Convention under the Constitution of the Seminary. Under the Constitution of the Seminary, each Diocese has a right to nominate its quota of Trustees. We cannot go beyond the certificates. The Dioceses exercise the constitutional right of selecting. I would also say that it is impossible for me or any member of the Committee to answer the question as to the number of times the Trustees thus nominated have attended. It cannot be ascertained without going through all the published proceedings of the Board.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Then I understand that the responsibility is upon us. The appointing power is upon us, but virtually we do nothing but pass upon the names they send to us. If that is the desire of the House, I have nothing to say.

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. As a member of this Committee, I would answer the question of my friend from Pennsylvania, that neither this Convention nor the Committee has anything to do with regard to the qualifications of those who are nominated as members of the Board of Trustees. They are nominated by the Dioceses; and if my friend, who I am sure is very active in Pennsylvania, in its Convention, will ascertain whether those nominated from his Diocese are proper persons, and will perform his duty in that respect, and others also will do their duty under his instructions in the various Conventions, things will go on well. But neither this General Convention nor this Committee, acting under its instructions, have any right to go outside the testimonials sent from the various Dioceses.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Now I understand that it is a mere formal act of ours to see whether the certificates be right. Though the responsibility rests on us, we merely take up the names that are sent up and never reject any. If that is the understanding, we shall have to look elsewhere for the responsibility. Then the General Convention has no responsibility at all.

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I may have misunderstood the report and the resolution, as read by the Rev. Deputy from New Jersey; but I understood him to say that this list was made up in two several manners: that from a certain number of Dioceses they had received certificates, and from other Dioceses they had consulted Convention_reports. Did I rightly understand him?

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. Yes, sir, the journals of the last Convention.

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I read Canon 4, which says:

"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Convention of every Diocese to forward to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, at every General Convention, a certificate of the nomination by the Diocese of a trustee or trustees for the General Theological Seminary and without such certificate the nomination shall not be confirmed."

If, therefore, some of these nominations are without the certificate, they ought to be excluded from our action by the Canon on that subject. I move, therefore, the recommitment of this report to the Committee.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion to recommit.

The motion was agreed to.

NIGHT SESSIONS.

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. I think it stands on our minutes that we shall have night sessions this week; and although we changed the hours of meeting on Saturday, we did not formally repeal the order as to night sessions. I move its repeal.

The motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT. The Calendar is now in order. PLACE OF NEXT MEETING.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The House of Bishops are exceedingly anxious that a committee be appointed to determine the place for the meeting of the next Convention. I wish to call up that resolution from the Calendar. It is simply a resolution calling for the appointment of a Committee to confer. It is business No. 21 on the Calendar.

The resolution was taken from the Calendar, as follows:

"Resolved, That a committee, composed of three clergymen and three laymen, be appointed to confer with the House of Bishops, and suggest to this House an appropriate place or places for holding the next session of the General Convention."

The SECRETARY. I suggest a change in the form. The House of Bishops took exception to the last message I took up to them. It should be, "the House of Bishops concurring, That a committee,"

[blocks in formation]

modified.

The resolution will be so

The resolution, as modified, was agreed to.

TESTIMONIALS OF BISHOPS-ELECT.

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. When we adjourned on Saturday the motion before the House was to lay the substitute of the gentleman from Easton (Rev. Dr. Stearns) on the table, and a vote, by Dioceses or orders, was called for. Now, I beg leave to suggest to the House and to the Clerical Deputy from Delaware who made the motion to lay on the table, that the vote be taken now directly on the substitute, with the understanding that there shall be no debate. I would suggest, therefore, that the Deputy from Delaware ask leave to withdraw his motion to lay on the table, with the understanding that instead thereof a direct vote shall be taken on the proposition of the gentleman from Easton by Dioceses and orders. I think it will be more expeditious. In case the motion to lay on the table should be lost, we should be liable to debate on the original proposition. I hope leave will be given to withdraw the motion to lay on the table, and ask the House to vote at once on the substitute of the gentleman from Easton.

Rev. Mr. STONE, of Delaware. If the house will allow me consent, I will state the reasons why I made the motion and why I propose now to withdraw it. I will say what I have to say in two min

utes.

The PRESIDENT. Is the motion to lay on the table withdrawn?

Rev. Mr. STONE, of Delaware. I am going to withdraw it, but I ask the courtesy of the House to state why I made the motion and why I withdraw it. If they object I will say nothing. ["Go on."]

I made the motion, in the first place, to stop a long, tedious, and unprofitable discussion at this late hour of our session, when every moment is precious and immensely valuable. I made the motion because I thought this House would never give up its power and authority in reference to the confirmation or anticonfirmation of any Bishop whose name might be sent up here for action. I made the motion also because the measure looked like a reflection on the action of the House in reference to a matter which has been before them in secret session. It seemed to be a motion to prevent any Convention acting in a similar manner in the future; and I felt that this Convention ought never, under any circumstances, to yield their power and authority in reference to the confirmation of any Bishop whose name might come before it; for I look upon their action as necessary to preserve the dignity and purity and the honor of this Church. Now, sir, I withdraw the motion to lay on the table; and I do it cheerfully, provided the House will come to a direct vote on the question, and thus settle a long and tedious and unprofitable discussion.

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. If the motion is withdrawn, I have just one word to say.

Rev. Mr. STONE, of Delaware. I withdraw the motion provided the House will come to a direct vote.

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I will only say a word in response to what the gentleman has said. The gentleman said that he made the motion because the proposition seemed to be introduced as a reflection on the action of the Convention. I wish simply to say that this motion of mine was introduced on the fourth day of the session, and was made the order of the day for last Friday week, but was necessarily postponed by the secret session. It could, therefore, have no reference whatever to the action of the House on a certain question.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the substitute for the report of the Committee on Canons, offered by the gentleman from Easton [Rev. Dr. STEARNS]. Do you wish to hear the substitute and the report read? ["Yes."]

The Secretary read the report and the substitute of the Rev. Dr. Stearns.

Mr. KING, of Long Island. I trust the matter will not be voted upon until the resolution of the Deputy from Pennsylvania [Mr. Welsh] has been acted on, by which all the Standing Committees shall be composed of clergymen and laymen in equal parts; otherwise we give away a principle which the Constitution contains.

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. That is a subject which has nothing to do with this whatever. That affects present action of the Standing Committees as much as future action. It has nothing to do with the particular amendment I have offered.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the substitute proposed by the Rev. Deputy from Easton. I understand that the question has been ordered to be taken by Dioceses and Orders.

Rev. Mr. STONE, of Delaware. That call was withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT. I understood the agreement was that the main question was to be taken by Dioceses and orders, instead of the question to lay on the table.

Rev. Mr. STONE, of Delaware. The gentleman from Easton asked that the vote on my motion be taken by orders. I withdrew my motion, and that call falls.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. This is an important measure, and should not be too hastily passed on. What does it amount to? Who first confirmed the Bishop after a Diocese had elected him? The General Convention first did it; and how came the Standing Committees in any way to be implicated in the necessity to act? It was solely for the purpose of preventing the inconvenience of Dioceses being without Bishops during the greater part of the three years. The General Convention sits so as to allow action during at least one-sixth of the time, and I hold that it is wise that it should do so. It trenches not the least on the Dioceses. If a Diocese wishes & Bishop at any time before the six months, all it has to do is to elect him, and then the Standing Committees act. But now, forsooth, because the Convention has recently acted on such an election, and has been delayed for several days, gentlemen wish to throw the whole matter on the Standing Committees. Let me say to the laity that there are Standing Committees in this Church which have not a layman on them. Gentlemen of the laity, are you going to be deprived of your right, and throw this matter on such Standing Committees ? There may be but one or two of them; but the principle is the same. I hold that it is wise to act now upon the rule obsta principiis. Let us stick to what we have until at least we provide that our Standing Committees shall be compos ed of an equal number of clerics and laics, Until

then there is nothing like equality among us. There caght to be, and the Constitution contemplates that there should be.

Mr. KING, of Long Island. I renew the call for a vote by Dioceses and orders. The PRESIDENT.

Island call for it?

Does the Diocese of Long

Mr. KING, of Long Island. We all agree in the Diocese of Long Island on that point. Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I should be glad to hear the question distinctly stated by the Chair as it will be presented for the vote of the House.

The PRESIDENT. Dr. Perry will state it so that it can be more certainly heard.

The SECRETARY. The Rev. Dr. Stearns has proposed an amendment to the resolution reported by the Committee on Canons in their Report No. 7. That amendment strikes out Sections 2 and 3, of Canon 13, of Title I., and removes the provision whereby the confirmation of a Bishop, elected within six months of the time of the meeting of a General Convention, comes before that General Convention. It remands the whole matter to the Standing Committees in all cases whatsoever.

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. I trust, sir, that this amendment will not prevail, and I shall very briefly give the reasons that to my mind are conclusive as to that point. I consider this

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. Is this question debatable after the vote by Dioceses has been called for?

The PRESIDENT. I think so. Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. There was an understanding that it should not be debated.

The PRESIDENT. I cannot recognize a mere understanding.

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. I consider the adoption of this proposition as parting with a principle which ought, by no means, be sacrificed. The provision giving the power to the Bishop and Standing Committee to act during the recess of the Convention was a matter of convenience. It has been stated and proved upon this floor that a portion of these standing committees are not constitutionally organized. They are totally at vari ance with the Constitution of the Church, and that point alone, in my opinion, is conclusive that we should still retain the principle, even if we practically have not the power to apply it. Although the practical exercise of our power may be evaded by a Diocese not electing a Bishop within six months of the meeting of the General Convention, I would not give up the principle; and especially I would not give it up until those Dioceses who have not conformed to the General Constitution of the Church have organized themselves upon a proper platform. To speak after a civil manner, they have not a republican form of Government, for the lay element in some of them is not introduced.

Mr. BATTLE, of North Carolina. Mr. President, I was perfectly willing that the vote should have been taken without any discussion; but as the debate has recommenced, I beg leave to speak for five minutes. Everything I have to say in favor of the amendment can be said in that time.

As a member of the Committee on Canons, I voted aganst the report which has been submitted to the House. All the objections that have been urged against this measure apply to five-sixths of the Bishops. If it is a good reason, it ought to have prevailed heretofore in all cases. I have all the time been in favor of that great principle that equality is equity. If you apply it to five Bishops, why not apply it to the sixth? This Convention holds its meeting but once every three years; and in view of the numbers of this House, if there should be two or three Bishops

elected within six months of its meeting, and we have a debate of eight days in each case, we should have to give up all other business. If we encounter the difficulty which we have had at this session in regard to the nomination of the Bishop-elect of Illinois, and if we have three or four cases of that kind coming before us, we should have to abandon all our rights as legislators and confine ourselves to the confirmation of Bishops-elect. But my great reason is that all that can be said against the practice which is proposed applies now to five cases out of six; and equality is equity.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I do not desire to debate the subject; but supposing that we are going to take the vote, I wish to state that I hope every member of the House understands the issue as it will be presented now. The amendment, as I understand it, and as I believe the case is, proposes to change the present order, and give up the election in the six months that are retained for this House, so that all who vote "aye" when the call is made vote in favor of the change, while all who vote "nay "vote to leave things as they now are.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the adoption of the substitute for the report of the Committee on Canons, proposed by the gentleman from Easton.

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll, with the following result:

CLERICAL VOTE.-Aye-Albany, Arkansas, California, Central New York, Easton, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, South Carolina. Nay -Central Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Long Island, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Western New York, Wisconsin. Divided-Alabama, Illinois, Iowa, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee.

Mr. KING, of Long Island. I think it is not necessary to consume the time of the House by taking the vote of the laity. The proposition is so entirely defeated that I do not see the necessity of going further.

The PRESIDENT. I do not see how that can be done.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I desire information. I ask whether this vote is only to let it go to the Committee on Canons that they may consider it?

The PRESIDENT. No; it is to change the Canons of the Church in regard to the confirmation of a Bishop-elect.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. A final act. Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. This is out of order. Go on with the call.

The Secretary continued the calling of the roll of the laity, with the following result:

LAY VOTE.-Aye-Alabama, Albany, Easton, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina. Nay-California, Central New York, Central Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Long Island, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Virginia, Western New York, Wisconsin. Divided-Tennessee.

RESULT.-Clerical Vote-41 Dioceses represented : ayes 10, nays 25, divided 6. Lay Vote-36 Dioceses represented: ayes 9, nays 26, divided 1.

So the amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDENT. The question now is on the resolution reported by the Committee to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

« PreviousContinue »