Protestant Episcopal Churcl'' 
 in the U.S.A. Diocese of 5 
 NeT-7 «^ersey r 
 
,v5-fq7 
 
, ote&ta.«+ fclpiscopf the 'J.b.rt, 
 
 D'.Q "ericy, 
 
 ^"^1^0 A REPORT /f^ 
 
 •B^^ 
 
 SAYINGS AND DOINGS 
 
 SPECIAL CONVENTION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 DIOCESE OF NEW JERSEY, 
 
 TRINITY CHURCH, NEWARK, 
 
 On WedxXesday, Octobeb 27th, 1852. 
 
 NEWARK : 
 
 PRINTED AT THE OFFICE OP THE DAILY ADVERTISER. 
 
 1852. 
 
REPORT. 
 
 At the close of the usual religious services, the Bishop took the 
 Chair as President of the Convention. The Rev. A. B. Paterson and 
 the Rev. Mr. Boggs also took their places as Secretaries. 
 
 The Bishop then read his address to the Convention ; bat as it is 
 understood that it will he printed in the Journal, it is deemed un- 
 necessary to report it here. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Southakd — The Committee are ready, Sir, to present 
 their Report. 
 
 The Bishop — The Report of the Committee, appointed to wait on 
 the Court of Bishops, is now in order. 
 
 Hereupon, Mr. Southakd read a lengthy document, which, being 
 in print, the Reporter did not follow, 
 
 Mr. J. J. Chetwood — I now propose for adoption the following 
 Preamble and Resolutions. 
 
 [As these were temporarily withdrawn, and occur under a re?iewal of 
 the motion in a subsequent part of this Report, (p. — ,) they are not in- 
 serted here.'\ 
 
 Rev. Mr. Lowell — If my place have any value. Reverend Father, 
 to myself or others, it is because it gives me opportunity to speak 
 freely, whenever right and truth demand it. In this case, there are 
 interests involved and principles of truth at risk, so mighty and nio- 
 mentous, that I could not be silent, if I would. 
 
 Mr. Joel W. Condit — 1 wish to call the gentleman to order. 
 
 It being urged that the acceptance of the Report of the C'omniittee 
 was the next business properly in order, the Kev. Mr. Lowell yielded ; 
 and Mr. Chetwood, having withdrawn the Preamble and Resolutions 
 offered by him, moved. That the Report of the Commitee, as read 
 before the Convention, be now accepted. The motion was sec- 
 onded. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Sherman — I have a word to say against the acceptance 
 of this Report. There are important reasons why it should not be 
 received, in its present shape. The Committee have manifestly tran- 
 scended their powers. They have traversed ground not contemplated 
 in their appointment, and are reporting to us concerning matters 
 •which were never assigned to them — matters which were not evea 
 known to the Convention of July — matters which had not transpired, 
 at the time when the Committee was raised. Their Report goes too 
 far, and includes extraneous subject matter — I mean matter extrane- 
 
 ' 863351' 
 
 NMvaaHiiro 
 
ous to the scope of their commission — which comes not within the 
 purview of their appointment, and which, as a Committee, they had 
 no right to enter upon and discuss, as they have done. The Report 
 as it stands presented, is objectionable, and ought on no account to 
 be accepted entire. 
 
 Hon. J. W. Miller — I raise the question of order, as to whether 
 any debate is admissible upon the simple motion to accept the Report. 
 Discussion of the substance of the Report can only properly come 
 in, when the motion occurs upon its adoption. The motion now, is 
 not to adopt, but merely to accept the Committee's Report — that it may 
 thus pass from their hands to the Convention. By parliam<^ntary 
 rules, it cannot be considered in order, to discuss what is contained 
 in the Report or any part of it, except upon the main question of its 
 adoption. The motion to merely accept is not debateable. 
 
 Rev. Mil. Sherman — It was not my purpose to enter upon the 
 merits of the question. It is against receiving the Committee's Re- 
 port that I object ; because it goes beyond what was referred to 
 them, and includes other matter than that which was contemplated in 
 their appointment. And with all due respect to the opinion of the 
 honorable gentleman who has questioned it, I believe it to be in strict 
 accordance with parliamentary usage, when a Committee has tran- 
 scended its powers by the introduction of extraneous subject matter, 
 to meet the case at once under the motion to accept their Report, and 
 exclude such irrelevant matter from the accptance. [Cries of " or- 
 der."] 
 
 Mr. Archer Gifford — The objection of the Rev. gentleman is 
 undoubtedly in order, and offered in the proper place. In my opinion 
 he is right and perfectly in order. His objection strikes me as forci- 
 ble ; and if it is to have any effect at all, it must come forward now. 
 
 Mr. Cortlandt Parker — Certainly. There can be no question 
 about its being in order; and if the Committee have reported upon 
 other matters than those referred to them, (as seems to be the case,) 
 we ought not to accept these parts of their Report. 
 
 Hon. William Halsted — I am opposed to the whole Report of 
 the Committee — not only to what they have done over and above 
 their instructions: but I object to the whole of it. For they have put 
 forth sentiments in that document, which are contrary to the Canons 
 and principles of the Church, and there are several statements in it 
 which are not true. I want the facts to be stated as they are, and I 
 shall oppose the acceptance of this Report altogether, because it con- 
 tains what is false. [Cries of " order, order."] 
 
 Mr. Ryall — I beg to suggest to the gentleman from St, Michael's, 
 that the question is not now upon the adoption of the Report ; it is 
 only that we should receive it, in order that the Committee may be 
 discharged. When it is proposed to adopt the report, which will be 
 afterwards, then gentlemen can have an opportunity of discussing the 
 merits of it, and rejecting it if they see fit. We must in the first 
 place accept it ; and i believe it is always customary to do so, in or- 
 der to have it before us, for it is not proper to act upon it till it is ac- 
 cepted. 
 
 Mr. J. J. CriETWooD — The Report of the Committee must be re- 
 ceived before it can be acted on. The whole that has been said is out 
 of order till after the Report is accepted. Gentlemen need not be 
 
afraid of committing themselves by voting for it ; for they can vote to 
 receive it, and then vote against adopting it. The acceptance is only 
 a formal thing in the course of business. 
 
 Hox. Jamks Parker — lam satisfied that an acceptance of this 
 Report is something more than a mere form. If we accept it, we 
 subscribe in some sense to its sentiments, and become responsible for 
 taking them off the hands of the Committee upon ourselves, which I 
 cannot consent to. There are many tilings in the Report which I 
 cannot subscribe to, and I claim the right to speak my mind, and give 
 my reasons. [Cries of " question."] 
 
 The Bishop — It is out of order to speak upon the Report till the 
 Convention have received it. I do not wish to cut short any discus- 
 sion, in its proper place. When the motion occurs to adopt, I shall 
 be willing to hear what may be said. 
 
 Judge Ogden — I hope this will satisfy all. lean assure them that ■ 
 there is no intention of stifling debate. We shall willingly listen to 
 a full discussion when the Report is taken up for adoption. 
 
 Mu. Walter Ruthef^furd — That is all we want. If it is under- 
 stood that the whole subject is to be open for free discussion, we are 
 satisfied. All we ask is for freedom of debate, and liberty to express 
 our opinions. 
 
 The Bishop — That you can do, when tlie Report is accepted, un- 
 der the motion for adoption. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Sherjian — I now wish to renew the point of objection 
 which I raised at the beginning, but from which there has been, in 
 most of the subsequent remarks which have been made, a broad di- 
 vergence. It was neither my wish nor intention, in objecting to the 
 motion of acceptance, to open discussion upon the general merits of 
 the Report as presented, and I am not aware of having myself so 
 touched upon it. The ground of my objecting was this : that the 
 Committee had transcended their powers — that tlioy had traversed 
 ground not assigned to them, and had incorporated in their Report 
 matters not referred to them — matters which had not then transpired, 
 at the time of their appointment. The receiving or acceptance of 
 this part of their Report, is what I object to. They have clearly 
 transcended their appointment. They have not only attended to the 
 special business delegated to them by the Convention and discharged 
 themselves of tliat, but they seem to have considered themselves as a 
 kind of general Committee of Safety for the Bishop, with a sort of 
 roving commission to do anything and everything that might serve his 
 interests: and they have gone out of the waj^ to discuss specifications 
 in a Presentment which hiid not even been made when the Committee 
 was appointed. I submit therefore that they have transcended their 
 powers ; and that so much only of their Report as relates to the sub- 
 ject matter referred to them, should be accepted. It is against tha 
 receiving, as a part of their Report these matters, which are extra- 
 neous, that I protest. To bring my objection to the point, however, I 
 wish to move an amendment to the motion, or a substitute for it — to 
 accept that part of the Report — (if I cr-uld be furnished with the doc- 
 ument, I will indicate the particular matters to be excluded) — [a copy 
 of the Report teas here handed to the speaker.'] I now move as an 
 amendment or substitute, that that portion of the Report of the Com - 
 
6 
 
 mittee as read, which precedes the first occurrence of the terras of 
 address, " Right Reverend Fathers," be accepted. 
 
 The Bishop — The amendment is not in order. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Sherman — Is that the decision of the Chair? 
 
 The Bishop- -It is. 'Jlie motion is not in order. 
 
 Rkv. Mr. Shkrman — Then I appeal from the decision of the Chair, 
 if it is ruled that such appeal is in order. The Rules of Order as es- 
 tablished by the Convention do not formally and expressly recognize 
 the right of appeal; and the construclioji wh\ch has prevailed here, 
 has been, that upon all questions of order the decision of the Chair is 
 final. I press the point, therefore; Is an appeal to the house, from a 
 decision of the Chair, allowaMe under the Rules of Order ? 
 
 The Bishop — An appeal is not in order under the Rule ; but I am 
 "willing to entertain it, and will put the question. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Sherman — I am unwilling to urge the appeal if it is not 
 in accordance with the Rule. I hold myself subject to the Rules of 
 the house, and cannot press my appeal. I wish to maintain and ob- 
 serve the Rules of Order. And here I wish it to be noted, that it is 
 ruled by the Chair that an appeal from its decision is not allowed by 
 the Rules of Order here obtaining. A similar decision occurred on a 
 former occasion and was forgotten. I hope this will be remembered. 
 
 Mr. J. J. Chetwood — I now call for the vote on motion to accept 
 the Report of the Committee as read to the Convention. 
 
 The Bishop put the motion, which was carried. 
 
 After the acceptance of the Report, the question occurring on its 
 adoption. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Lowell spoke as follows : 
 
 Reverend Father — I am now ready fo take up again, where it was 
 dropped, the thread of my remarks. I have been saj'ing Sir, that cer- 
 tain great and living principles lay at the bottom of this discussion, 
 and principles, I apprehend, which have been quite misunderstood, or 
 laid aside by this Convention in its former action. 
 
 I say again. Sir, that there is one single, sole tribunal, at which the 
 question of a Bishop's guilt or innocence, when accused, can be in- 
 vestigated ; a single one, at which before the world, right can bo 
 done, when charges have been made against him by responsible persons. 
 In that connection I be:^ the indulgence of the house, while I remind 
 them of the quotation from the Canon lav/, illustrative of this settled 
 principle: episcoptim a comprovinciaUbus suis judicare dehere. Has 
 this clear principle been understood or borne in mind? Let me refer, 
 for illustration of the contrary, to these words, occurring in the Report 
 presented by our Committe, who apply, if not directly, yet surely, 
 indirectly, the term "a lawful couit," to this Convention or to its 
 Committee. Behold what character is arrogated to a Committee of 
 our own, when they are sitting to investigate the weight and worth of 
 charges said to have been presented, impeaching the good character 
 of our Bishop! I ought at once to say, by way of parenthesis, that I 
 am quite ignorant of the matters said here to have been published 
 since the sitting of the Court, by the " three Bishops." I have avoided 
 reading them. They are no views or arguments of other men which 
 prompted the few words from me before and these. Such terms as 
 that above — such strange and wrong opinions as occasion them — 
 
these urge me to maintaia the right against tho wrong, I now wish 
 to present to you again, and for the purpose of enforcing it, what 
 seems a phiin and fundamental truth ; and as it always is the dictate 
 of good policy as well as of plain duty, that truth should be observed, 
 so here especially it seems to me, that that, and that alone it is which 
 ought to guide our action. ■< 
 
 If now it be, as I believe it is, a fact which will not be disputed by 
 thosn who are acquainted with the history and structure of the Church, 
 that there is but that one, that single competent tribunal for trial of a 
 Bishop charged with wrong doing, is it too much to say that in estab- 
 lishing another court, and claiming that its favorable award is final, 
 there has been actu;d evasion of this forum, and a withdrawing of our 
 cause froin the one place to which it ought to go ? Most surely, Sir, 
 our leaving the true court for any thing which is not the true court, is a 
 wrong done ourselves, and if we can persist in it, it is a wrong done 
 to others. 
 
 This principle seems to be the more important to be entertained just 
 now, because it is tho very thing required, as well for the establishing 
 the Bishop's innocence, as for God's sake, and for preserving the sa- 
 cred institutions which Ho has set within the Church. 1 do not hero 
 propose to undertake discussing with exactness, the (juestion of what 
 constitutes a court, to show the grievous error making its way into 
 this case. But I remember very well, that high authorities upon this 
 floor denied, when the appointment of the " Investigating Committee" 
 was proposed, that it would have or claim in any way, the character of 
 a court, as I know very well, moreover, that no such character caa 
 properly belong to such a thing ; now it is to prevent that character 
 being erroneously ascribed to it, that I must ask you to consider well 
 the actual circumstances of this case. 
 
 It seems to me that where a convention, or a commitee of its form- 
 ing, can sit as a tribunal, investigate a case upon its merits, examine 
 witnesses, especially examine under oath, and then adjudicate a caso 
 upon its merits, there, if the characters of a court do not belong, it has 
 at least been wrongfully assumed or given. It seems to me, iSir, that 
 the very House of Bishops, except for that especial s:icredness of char- 
 acter which God has given to it, has not more properties of a court 
 than these same, it is no more than justice to allow to the Commit- 
 tee a fair construction of their action, granting, as must be granted, 
 that all the members were honorable and high minded, with every dis- 
 position to make a fair and thorough investigation, as far as they 
 were able ; yet it is quite another thing that that Committee has been 
 quietly, before the mind of our Convention and of the world at large, 
 taking a character which does not, and which of right cannot belong 
 to it — a cloak which ought to be stripped instantly from its shoulders. 
 It has been sitting as a court, and exercising all the faculties of a 
 court, and now, in the Report before us, behold the claim openly as- 
 serted — behold the title actually given — "a lawful court." 
 
 I have S'lid sir, that it seems to be essential to abide by truth in 
 this respect, not least, for preservation of the Bishop's rights. It will 
 be readily remembered, by those who are acquainted with the history 
 of our church in the United States, that the principle of a Bishop's be- 
 ing amenable to his convention, or any thing except a Court of Bishops, 
 as it was instantly objected to by the prelates of whom was sough ^ 
 
8 
 
 the gift of consecration in England ; so was it counted a most danger- 
 ous one by the best members of the Church on this side of the water. 
 About no single thing almost, was there so much solicitude and anx- 
 iety, when what is called " the Constitution of the Church" was just 
 about to be adopted. Now it seems clear that if to a convention, 
 acting by its committee, or of itself directly, be yielded such a power 
 to try the character and conduct of its Bishops, examining wit- 
 nesses under oath, disposing of the case upon its merits; it can most 
 easily and directly assume all jurisdiction in the premises, whatever 
 be the action of the House of Bishops. It certainly may just as well 
 convict its Bishop by its own private, partial action, as it can in this 
 private'way acquit him ; and looking upon the fearful consequences 
 of such a gross assumption of unrighteous power, I say that on this 
 ground, i( upon this alone, the careful maintenance of right and truth 
 is of the utmost consequence. The Bishop is not amenable to this 
 Convention, or to any part of it, or to a committee of whatever sort, 
 appointed by this Convention. 
 
 I do not wish to occupy your time longer than may be necessary; 
 but in the argument of this Report there are some things to which I 
 certainly will be no party, while I would say that I have no such thing 
 as verbal criticism, or criticism of style to make. In the Committee's 
 argument and authorities they halt most evidently, although they say 
 that they have brought to the discharge of their commission whatever 
 " learning," as well as other qualities of fitness they possessed. I do 
 not question. Sir, that they have brought to it all the learning that 
 they had among them, and have no doubt that they had learning quite 
 sufficient for their purpose. It has occasioned a str^.nge statement 
 here. I read from this Report — " The}' {the three bishops,) say with 
 justice and in strict accordance with the meaning of the Canons and 
 the spirit of all ancient law, that it is only when a diocesan convention 
 has refused to institute inquiry, which the Convention of New Jersey has 
 never done, or has neglected it for too long a period, that they can be 
 expected to interfere." Now, Sir, what may be the opinion of the 
 three presenting bishops, in this or any kindred matter, I do not know 
 from " their first letter," or from their later publications. Of what 
 importance is it to me? of what importance is it in the case at all? 
 and yet it is and has been quoted as a rule of action here and in sev- 
 eral of our Conventions heretofore. The argument of our Committee 
 I have a right to say a word to, and I wish to say that I should like 
 a meaning for this large expression, " the spirit of all ancient law." 
 How wide and large ! it would be a long labor certainly to show what 
 was " the spirit of all ancient law," or of one half of it — all ancient 
 Canon law — and I will meet their large assertion therefore, with just as 
 wide and as explicit a denial It is well for them that they have not said 
 "the letter of all ancient Ihw," for speaking from a moderate acquaint- 
 ance with the " Corpus Juris," I think that any one who will but run a 
 practised eye and ready hand along the titles of that swelling code for 
 instances, would find it difficult to get at this result, almost to find a 
 "letter" to encourage him. But with what confidence will men ex- 
 press themselves about "the spirit of all ancient law." It seems to 
 me that in this special matter, the imposing reference might better 
 3iave been left untouched. 
 
 What is all ancient law ? Is it our Canon of eight years ago, or 
 
that of three years earlier ? for as I remember the earliest Canon so 
 adopted b}' the Church upon the matter of the accusation of a Bishop,, 
 was that adopted at Constantinople, in the year 381. In the sixth 
 Canon of that Council, the Fathers there say somewhat thus, " that if 
 a charge be brought against a Bishop for a wrong done by him to 
 any other, the person of the accuser shall not be inquired into, nor 
 shall his religion, but it shall go to trial. If accusation shall be 
 brought in reference to some ecclesiastical subject, then the person 
 of the accuser shall be inquired into; for if he be a heretic or unbe- 
 liever, if he be excommunicated or nnder censure, he is not to be 
 heard in such a cause against an Orthodox Bishop." That may be 
 called. Reverend Father, " ancient law ;" that I believe, was the first 
 Canon on the subject in the Church. Now if you take, in connection 
 with that Canon, one of Chalcedon, in A.D., 451, upon the trial of a 
 Bishop by the Bishops of his province, and one called " apostolic," 
 (though not of the Apostles,) declaring, in like manner, how Bishops 
 are amenable to a Court of Bishops and censurable by them, you will 
 have all the Canons bearing directly on this subject within the first 
 five hundred years after our Savior Christ, and there you will find 
 nothing of Diocesan Conventions, if such things then existed, or any 
 thing diocesan. You will there find no reference to such a thing in 
 any possible way, direct or indirect; you will see there the character 
 of the Court to which the Bishop is and ought to be amenable, and 
 you will see the way in which he could be called to an account. 
 
 The question of the right to make presentment, our Committee set- 
 tle by reference to " the spirit of all ancient law." They say, that in 
 accordance with this spirit the three presenting Bishops have asserted, 
 " that it is only when a Diocesan Convention refuses or neglects to 
 institute investigation, th?t they can be expected to interfere." Now, 
 Sir, if, as I think I may most safely say, (no person well informed 
 being at all likely to say nay,) there is no reference whatever in the 
 large body of the Canon law to any interference of a Diocesan Con- 
 vention, or any thing diocesan, as such, about the trial of its Bishop, 
 then is the question not to be so settled. 
 
 The truth is, that the special right in this case of either party to 
 present, is founded on a positive enactment upon the Statute of our 
 Church, in its III Canon of 1844. We all of course remember, that 
 as it is provided that two-thirds of the clergy and two-thirds of the 
 laity, in Diocesan Convention may present, so also it is said that the 
 "presentment may be made by any three Bishops of this Church." 
 It might to a hasty eye appear perhaps, that as the last is the shorter 
 ex|)ression of the two, and as there is a little enlai'gement in expres- 
 sion of the first clause, therefore that carries something more of weight 
 and of authoi'ity than what belongs to the (ew words in which the 
 . power is given to three Bishops There is, however, no enlargement 
 as to the character in which the Diocese appears, except exactly such 
 as was required to guard with scrupulous care, that matter of present- 
 ment of a Bishop by his Diocese. It ought to have been, it was in- 
 tended not to convey a privilege or preference, but to prevent a Bish- 
 op's character being left at the disposal of his Diocesan Convention, 
 or his being driven to trial, hastily, by his Convention in case he were 
 unpopular, as is not the case liere. There is no niore weight given 
 in the words of that III Canon of 1844 to one than to the other; and 
 
10 
 
 therefore should there no more weight be given, in the case, to one 
 than to the other. They stand on positive enactment ; they stand on 
 equal terms in the enactment ; and while I say this, I will also say 
 that *• in accordance ivith the spirif of all ancient law," if there were a 
 priority of claim, it woultl, undoubtedly, belong to the three Bishops, 
 and not to the Convention. If there be question made of right be- 
 tween the Convention and the Bishops, apart from positive enactment 
 in that III Canon of 1844 and that of three years earlier, the prior 
 claim is for the Bishops, and not for tlie Convention. 
 
 I will ask any one running his eye over the Canon law, to bear rae 
 witness how well the rights and characters of Bishops have beea 
 guarded by their Canons. A hasty and unpractised person might 
 suppose, from one or two such glances, that any action for a Bishop's 
 trial must be begun and ended by his brother Bishops. I do not say 
 that this has been the case at first or last, but such expressions fre- 
 quentl}' occur in rules and glosses that it might seem, to such a hasty 
 glance, that there be no possibility of getting a bad Bishop to his 
 trial, unless by action of his brethren. Their equal claim to make 
 presentment, who, until now, would ever dare deny? Their equal 
 right, by the plain language of the Canon, as by plain common sense, 
 who ought to question ? 
 
 Now, Sir, comes our Committee, claiming credit for having done this 
 chief and greatest wrong; they have succeeded — so they say — in with- 
 drawing this case from its proper forum ; doing our Bishop, in so doing, 
 a great and manifest injustice in keeping him from vindicating, in the 
 face of an angry world, or (had the case been so,) of a suspicious and 
 complaining diocese — from vindicating, in whatever case — the integ- 
 rity of his character. Here I would saj' too, that as regards the con- 
 duct of this last Committee of the Diocese, I would not question, for 
 a single moment, that full faith should be given to its sincerity and 
 singleness of purpose in every step tnat has been taken ; in every ar- 
 gument and opinion urged; but why have we brought up again and 
 j'et again, this matter of priority of claim to make presentment, unless 
 to put off trial by the Bishops ? All this withdrawing of the case from 
 that one Court of Bishops, by bringing in of certain secondary ques- 
 tions from the first, has seemed to n)e of the most dangerous tendency 
 in our Committee, not only because by raising and discussing them 
 they assail the truth, but because they are doing by this course, so 
 great a wrong, as I conceive to their own Bishop's feelings and fair 
 fame. If there be no tribunal fully competent, except that of the 
 House of Bishops, or if, to put it even on a lower ground, there were 
 in the estimation of a very large body of the Church but that one — an 
 opinion supported by reference to all ecclesiastical authority — if there 
 were such an opinion, as I am confident there is with a large number 
 of those members of the Church who are agreed in every point of doc- 
 trine with our Bishop, that there is no Court except that which can 
 rightfully set on such a case as this, (or of necessity can finally deter- 
 mine it,) then I conceive that a great wrong is being done to our 
 Bishop by our Committe or this Convention thrusting itself in between 
 him and the House of Bishops, with its side questions of light and 
 wrong. 
 
 I know that a great deal has been said heretofore about the rights 
 of this Diocese being invaded; but I believe that such invasion might 
 
11 
 
 be fairly met and quite sufficiently repelled by any document like that 
 entitled " Protest, Appeal and Reply," upon the I'ishop's part, and bj 
 a proper action of the Diocesan Convention ; but I must ask why 
 that same sort of feeling should be still perpetuated ; to what good 
 end expressions tending to increase it should be still employed ; whj 
 our Committee should lay so much stress upon the rights and claims 
 (as they are called) of the Convention of the Diocese; for, as was 
 said before, their doing so is keeping wide and widening still, the sep- 
 aration between our Bishop and that competent tribunal — that couit 
 to which, as has been said, he is amenable ; to which, for his owa 
 sake, I believe fully that he ought to go. Shall this Committee be al- 
 lowed to raise again these little questions, as they seem to me in com- 
 parison with the one great question? That one great question, para- 
 mount, is of doing right, and so of doing justice to the Bishop's 
 character. So runs " all ancient law," in most exact accordance with 
 that sentence of the Bible ; A Bishop must be blameless — a text 
 which shines both far and wide upon its page. 
 
 For what has been already done by the Investigating Committee, I 
 have already said that I believe most fully that they have done this 
 work as honorable, high-minded men ; but, at the same time, if even, 
 they had been a competent tribunal, still what has been said about the 
 thoroughness and sufiiciency of their examination is untrue. Whether, 
 as this Report says, those who accuse i the Bishop oughtlo have been 
 there or not, (and I would not now question the propriety of their 
 coming, if they pleased;) yet it is manifest that they were not before 
 the Committee of Investigation. Certain persons, of whom I scarcely 
 know the names, and nothing more, but who, as it appears, have 
 brought the heaviest charges against the Bishop, did not appear at all, 
 and so, of course, they answered to no question, and therefore the 
 investigation was, from the necessity of the case, a partial one. It 
 was not so intended: far otherwise; but from the nature of the case 
 it was the fact that that was an ex parte examination. Now, Sir, be- 
 lieving, as I do, that the result of that investigation was a just and true 
 one as regards the Bishop's character; believing, as I do, that the 
 Bishop is innocent of the charges brought against him, I ask wlij 
 should we, by the raising of whatever secondary questions, keep back 
 the Bish-^p from the simple issue? Keep back our Bishop from that 
 one sufficient court, by which his case would have been finally deter- 
 mined and have been set at rest long years and years ago. 
 
 I have, and ever had, but one opinion in this matter — that if it had 
 been lanl, three years ago, before the House of Bishops, all difficulty 
 would have been removed, three years ago, instead of gathering in 
 volume and in blackness as the time went on. Is it not now exactly 
 of the same importance to this Convention? — is it not now exactly of 
 . the same importance to our Bishop, that the right course should be 
 adopted? If that be now, as always, the one competent tribunal, 
 then let us waive these other questions and keep ourselves to that one 
 single point : the satisfaction of the chiims of justice for our Bish p. 
 Wliy will we not now let the case go up on its own merits to that 
 court, [inte7ruptioii by Mr. Gondii,^ instead of suffering accusalioa 
 still to walk the earth. [Mr. Gondii thinks the gentleman wholly out 
 of order. ] 
 
 I am not out of order, Sir, for I am speaking against a course of ac- 
 
12 
 
 tion proposed in this Report, as the Uke course of action, heretofore, 
 is there applauded ; and therefore am not willing to be interrupted. I 
 do not wish that the Report should be adopted, for I believe that it 
 involves approval of a course which has infheted and will still inflict 
 an injury upon this Convention and ou the character of its Bishop, 
 not the least. Now I take leave to ask of the Convention yet again, 
 is it not far better, (and I am commenting upon the views presented 
 in thisHeport,) will it not be better far if the case should be suffered 
 yet to go upon its mei its directly to the House of Bishops ? It is be- 
 cause the Report of this Committee so interposes other subjects be- 
 tween us and the simple issue ; it is because that Report raises so 
 great and many difficulties which ought to have no place in the con- 
 sideration of this most important subject ; and it is finally and espe- 
 cially because the course which it applauds and recommends, is not 
 the right course, the plain and simple course, which leads to simple 
 right. It is for these causes, Sir, that I object to it. 
 
 Now, in conclusion, I would only ask, if it was ever known — I ask 
 of all the members of the Convention who have been in the habit of 
 dealing with innocent and honest men, (and I suppose that I may ask 
 of all its members,) if it was ever known in their experience before, 
 that between any innocent and honest man, swelling with the con- 
 sciousness of innocence as to twice the man of common times, be- 
 tween him and a fair tribunal, so many difficulties and objections and 
 obstacles were interposed as we have had thrust in between our 
 Bishop and that simple course by vhich all difficulty would have been 
 removed ; between him and that court by which true, final justice 
 could have been dispensed? 1 never knew of such a case as that in 
 which an honest and innocent man, as I believe, our Bishop is — 
 nay, as we know him to be — had so much pains and skill and effort 
 aU bestowed to keep him, when accused, from going to the compe- 
 tent tribunal. In former years my office brought me into both fre- 
 quent and familiar intercourse w^ith officers of the army and the navy, 
 and I am sure that not a single one of them, if charges had been made 
 afiecting (as the phrase goes,) his character as an officer and gentle- 
 man, would have set down content for three whole days, without a 
 trial. I cannot I am sure conceive why in this case objection should 
 be made. The Bishop is innocent; he is charged; the House of 
 Bishops, and they only, can acquit him. 
 
 Sir, one single difficulty may have been present in the minds of 
 certain persons concerned in these proceedings ; it may be that mem- 
 bers of the Convention have aniicipated some injustice from ?he sup- 
 posed hostility of certain members of the House of Bishops. 1 do 
 not know. Sir, how many of the Bishops are hostile to our own. 
 Whatever may have been the case — if that had been the case, which 
 has, perhaps, been feared — if even it were true, which God forbid, 
 that justice cannot be fairly and equitably administered by them, still 
 even then it is the competent tribunal. If every one of all those 
 Bishops were opposed — aye, every single man opposed to ours on 
 every point of doctrine, even then it is the court of God's appoint- 
 ment. Certainly, had 1 been ever asked to give advice, I would have 
 said. Go to that court: go there and be condemned, if necessary. So, 
 long ago, our Savior Christ went to the judgment seat, though from 
 the judgment seat the path led only to the cross raised for Him ; and 
 
13 
 
 so, Sir, just as our Savior went patiently and meekly to the right tri- 
 bunal, though only to a certain condemation, even so why should not 
 we ? If it were sure that he shall fall an innocent man before his 
 guilty judges, yet let the innocent man go to his trial, and let even 
 wicked law, in the hands of wicked administrators of the law, should 
 it be so, take its own lawful course. So martyrs and saints, from the 
 earliest day of our dear faith, till now, have always followed and al- 
 waj's have exhibited again our Savior Christ's example, who, as St. 
 Peter says, went freely even to that tree, and Himself bare, not His 
 but our otlenses on that tree. They teach us all, these holy men, that 
 if we, too, be buffeted in doing well, and be condemned unjustly, still 
 it is well. Let us bear all injustice ; let us meet trial, and let us be con- 
 tent with condemnation. [Interruption again by Mr. Condit.] 
 
 Now, Sir, in this case, our Bishop has as strong a cause as, I be- 
 lieve, can well be brought before an earthly court ; I say a cause in 
 which those very accusers would be the very best of witnesses in his 
 favor : as good as if they had been summoned by himself to stand 
 there at his side. How is it then, that we can hesitate, and why is it 
 that we must be devising other plans ; adopting other expedients, 
 which of course can never satisfy the exigency of the case ? [Judge 
 Ogden here said that he was opposed to the gentleman's going on and 
 speaking of the course adopted in July; it seemed to him that he was 
 clearly out of order, when the Report was before the house for adop- 
 tion. Mr. Lowell proceeded :] I have been speaking freely. Sir, but 
 I have spoken, only, to the recommendations contained in that Report. 
 I ever shall speak freely. At the same time, t wish to say, that if I 
 had been out of order, it would have been quite unintentionally, and I 
 would promptly have apologized, both to the President and the Con- 
 vention ; but I have said enough, Sir, and with this last interruption 
 am content to take my seat. 
 
 At the conclusion of Mr. Lowell's remarks, the Convention ad- 
 journed, to meet at half-past 4 o'clock, P. M. 
 
 At the re-assembling of the Convention, the Bishop»having taken 
 the Chair, the house was called to order. 
 
 Hox. D. B. Ryall — Mr. President, the Convention have accepted 
 the Report of the Committee, and the question is before the Conven- 
 tion now, will they adopt it ? That is the point. I know not. Sir, 
 what was the object of the gentleman who last addressed the Con- 
 vention, in I'aising the objection upon such a point as he did. I do 
 not, Sir, as one of the Committee who have signed that Report, say 
 anj'thing in reference to it. It will speak for itself. It has been read 
 before the Convention, and I have no doubt they have given it due 
 consideration. I draw, Sir, however, the inference from the observa- 
 tions of the gentleman who last addressed the Convention, that it is 
 the duty now of this Convention, to retrace their steps — to rescind 
 by some resolution or by some action of the Convention, all that has 
 been done — to again assemble by some means or other the council of 
 the Bishops, and again for this Convention to apply to the House of 
 Bishops for the trial of the Bishop of this Diocese. If these are not 
 the objects which he has in view, I do not understand him. 
 
14 
 
 I will say nothing further. Sir, upon thcit subject ; but as in the 
 conrs" of his observations something was said in reference to the dis- 
 charge of the duties of the Committee appointed by this Convention, 
 and of the course pursued by the investigation, I wish for a few mo- 
 ments to correct a popular error which prevails in reference to what 
 is called ex parte evidence. 
 
 It has been said by the Rev. gentleman who last addressed the Con- 
 vention that the testimony of the witnesses, and the testimony taken 
 before the Committee raised by this Convention, and who have here- 
 tofore I'eported to it, was ex parte. Now, Sir, I do not understand it 
 to be ex parte testimony, in the legal acceptation of that term. 
 
 There is ex parte evidence taken, and such, Sir, was taken in this 
 ease when the deposition of Mr. Hays was taken at the office or be- 
 fore a Master in Chancery by a gentlem in from St. Michael's, or un- 
 der his direction, when you. Sir, the party who was impeached on that 
 occasion, when your friends had no opportunity of attending upon 
 that examination. That was strictly ex parte evidence, and was the 
 basis, as I understand it, upon which the charge was made. But, Sir, 
 the testimony taken before the Committee of Investigation was not 
 ex parte. 
 
 Notice was given, Sir, to the accusers. Nutice was given to every 
 individual named in that presentment, or who could shed any light on 
 the subject; a day fixed, an hour appointed, a Committee assembled, 
 for the purpose of hearing testimony, and notice given to the accusers 
 and to one of the accusers in particular, upon inquiries made by him, 
 that he had a right, would be permitted, would be received before the 
 Committee, either individually or as attorney for any of the parties, 
 for the purpose of examining that evidence. When, Sir, testimony is 
 taken, and all parties have a right to be heard, and neglect to be heard, 
 I take it Sir, that the examination then will not bear the appellation of 
 crpar^e evidence. 
 
 Look, Sir, at this evidence. A cause of no matter how much im- 
 portance to the land. The attorney for the plaiiitifl" sends his notice 
 to the attorney for the defendant, and the case is open ; witnesses 
 called for the purpose of establishing testimony on the part of the 
 plaintiff. II' the attorney for the defendant does not appear for the 
 purpose of cross examining thoise witnesses is that received as ex 
 parte evidence ? No, Sir. not according to the common acceptation 
 of the term, because they had an opportunity to do it. And the ac- 
 cusers in jour case, Sir, were said to have been injured. All parties 
 connected directly or indirectly were notified; every witness notified 
 to appear, were notified of the day and time of the examination. If 
 they neglected to appear, what. Sir, is the inference to be drawn? 
 Wiiy, that they could not establish the fact which it is said that 
 they would establish. 
 
 What course. Sir, was pursued by the Examining Committee ? 
 When the witnesses were examined, they did not take part either one 
 way or the other. The question was put to each witness, ' Will you 
 take the oath V The answer was, in each case, in the affirmative. 
 They weie then sworn to tell the truth, the whole tiuth, and nothing 
 but the truth. The inquiry then was, * Relate to the Committee all 
 you know in reference to this matter.' These were witnesses who it 
 was said would sustain the charge in many instances, and all they 
 
15 
 
 said and testified to was set down in writing, and signed by each of 
 these witnesses, and the result was the report which has been read in 
 your hearing. On the report of that Committee, where was the indi- 
 vidual who rose up and said that each and everything tliey said were 
 not true ? Was there any allegation or charge of tldskind before the 
 House of Bishops ? None that has come to my knowledge. 
 
 The testimony of the witnesses examined, disprove the facts as has 
 been stateii in a Report just made before you. I admit they were 
 erroneous, and if my own opinion had been carried out, 1 was pre- 
 pared to have made a Report that there was no evidence to sustain 
 any of these charges, but out of pvngent objection the witnesses were 
 examined ; what ever they would say, whether for or against you, was 
 recorded, and the result has been that there has been a mass of nega- 
 tive testimony, which from the principle upon which the Committee 
 acted, they seemed to go by the idea that these charges had in the 
 first place been proved. Now, Sir, take that testimony, then with this 
 notice to all who are interested in the matter, to the accusers, yourself 
 the part}' said to be injured, and all others, and compare it with (he 
 little testimony brought forward of the ex parte character, as published 
 by those who made the charges against you. On the one side, Sir, 
 there was proper evidence that all parties had an opportunity to be 
 heard, and where the Committee did go into investigation so far as 
 they were able to make it, it was full. On the other side there was 
 strictly ex parte testimony taken in the business, in all that was done 
 against you. 
 
 Before I sit down, i must beg leave to call the attention of the Con- 
 vention and of youiself, (o a matter to which my attention has been 
 drawn for the first time. It is the reply of the three Bishops, to a 
 paper read before the House of Bishops by the Committee, 
 
 They say. Sir, we trust it will not be considered as impertinent if 
 we remark, that of the seven members of the Committee, the Chair- 
 man, Mr. Ryall, was a zealous supporter of the accused, and Chairman 
 of the Committee, appointed by Bishop Doane, to examine Mr. Ger- 
 main's accounts, and did not disclose Mr Germain's illegal transfer 
 to Bishop Doane, which was one of the charges to be investigated; 
 and was Chairman of the Committee who reported contrary to the 
 truth, that the Episcopal Fund was safe. He was a trustee of the 
 College, where his children had been educated. 
 
 Mr. Harker was a creditor of the Bishop, and so interested to sus- 
 tain him. « 
 
 Mr. Potter was a trustee of the College, and a judgment creditor, 
 and was having a like interest, 
 
 Mr. Whitney was a trustee of the College, and so having a like in- 
 terest. 
 
 They also say that the examination made by the Committe was 
 wholly ex parte. 
 
 Now, Sir, I have not, I was going to say the honor, I am not per- 
 sonally acquainted with those three Bishops, and I believe. Si;-, that I 
 am a stranger to tliem. They are three Bishops of the Church to 
 which I belong, I am a stranger, 'i hey have charged me here Sir, 
 •with having reported contrary to the truth in reference to that Report. 
 Where did they obtain this information ? From what source I know 
 not. I will not, Sir, here express the feelings which influence mo at 
 
16 
 
 this moment. May God forgive them. But, Sir, all I have to say, is 
 that it is the first time in my life that I was ever charged with it, and 
 that too from strangers, from Bishops in the Church who know noth- 
 ing of me. Sir, I am charged here with having been a zealous sup- 
 porter of yourself What ever zeal, Sir, I may have displayed on any 
 occasion, it has been done in what I considered the cause of truth. 
 Where I thought there was wrong [ opposed it by my voice and by 
 my vote ; where I thought it was right, whether in reference to your- 
 self or otherwise, b}' my voice and vote I upheld it. 
 
 I was Chairman of the Committee appointed by Bishop Doane, to 
 examine Mr. Germain's accounts, and did not disclose Mr. Germain's 
 illegal transfer to Bishop Doane 
 
 1 am not aware, Sir, that Mr.. Germain ever made an illegal trans- 
 fer to you, Sir. It is the first time I have ever heard of it. The evi- 
 dence is before this Convention. It is to be found in the Journals, 
 and in his examination taken before the Committee. He only lOok 
 the same security. Sir, of you, as from his father and brother If there 
 was any difTerent I know not of it. The act was done before I was 
 appointed. I only reported upon the accounts. I said nothing, Sir, 
 in my Report in reference to the security of that fund. These charges 
 are not true then. Sir. They come from three Bishops of the Church, 
 who know nothing of me, and probably nothing of my character ; and 
 in the absence of all testimony have made an accusation which is 
 false. 
 
 But, Sir, it is said that I was the trustee of the College, where my 
 children had been educated. I have two sons there, and I hope at 
 the next session to have another, and I trust they will be graduates. 
 I prize the privilege. What is meant by these Bishops? 
 
 Because I am trustee of a College, and have two sons there, does 
 it follow that I am incapable of doing justice to you or the Conven- 
 tion ? Do they mean to convey the idea here, that I am under any 
 peculiar obligation to that Institution ? Have I not paid the fees for 
 my sons there ? 
 
 My colleague, too, Mr. Harker, was a creditor of the Bishop, and 
 so interested in sustaining the Bishop. Sir, is Mr. Harker? I know 
 not the fact whether it is so or not; but does that prevent him from 
 acting and deciding as a man should act in his position ? Was there 
 any one question raised before that Committee in which there was not 
 a unanimity of opinion ? 
 
 Was it not decided at the opening, that our meeting should not be 
 in St. Mary's Church, but that we selected from the outset a public 
 house ; from there adjourned to a Hall in the city of Burlington, that 
 we might be above suspicion ? It was proposed to go into the vestry 
 room of St. Mary's Church, which I objected to, and a hall was 
 kindly tenderd to us by the Mayor of Builington. 
 
 Mr. Potter was a trustee of the College, and creditor, and so having a 
 like interest. Sir, how was he creditor ? In the difficulties of the time. 
 Sir, arising from circumstances which may be very well understood in 
 reference to a certain course of proceedings, there was a judgment 
 obtained against Burlington College. Mr. Potter, my colleague, with 
 that liberality which chancterizes the man, came forward and ad- 
 vanced the money and took an assignment of the judgment secured. 
 Does this prevent him from being a competent person to judge, to say 
 
17 
 
 whether you, Sir, wero wrongly or rightly charged with offenses? I 
 do not understand it. 
 
 But Mr. Whitney was a trustee of the Co'Iege, and so having a like 
 interest. Yes, Sir, I believe he had a like interest. We were willing, 
 for the time, to forego, postpone, delay, adjourn the business in which 
 each was engaged, at great sacrifice to meet day after day, and work 
 from morning to night in the investigation of truth, because it was a 
 a matter of duty. There was nothing dark, nothing bidden. It was 
 all put in black and white, and not one word said against it. And 
 now, Sir, when the House of Bishops itself have decided and deter- 
 mined in effect, that the result of that investigation was satisfactory to 
 them, now, at the eleventh hour, my worthy friend would rise up and 
 say, what is to be done? 'i he Convention to retrace its steps, go 
 back for two or three years, convene again the House of l5ishops, re- 
 scind all your steps ! Why, Sir, it would be a waste of time. Sir, I 
 will not consume any more of your time. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Boggs — Mr. President, is it not customary that the Re- 
 port should be laid on the table? [The Reporter thinks something 
 more was added, but he could not hear.^ 
 
 Now it seems to me unnecessary that this question should be 
 pressed. For myself, I am perfectly free to confess that I do not 
 agree with the principles laid down in the Report; neither do I like 
 the Report itself. Nevertheless, my differing from it — [The Re- 
 porter could not follow the Speaker.^ 
 
 We cannot go to the House of Bishops, and tell them we do not 
 like the issue they have made. [Not heard.^ 
 
 Instead, therefore, of now pressing its adoption, would it not be 
 better to have this Report of the Committee laid on the table ? As 
 long as it is the property of the house, accepted but not adopled, it 
 remains properly the Committee's. They only are responsible 
 for the priuciples of Canon law which it sets forth : but if we adopt it, 
 we become involved. Therefore, 1 suggest to the gentleman from 
 Elizabethtown who moved the adoption of the Report, to withdraw 
 his motion. If he refuses, I shall move to amend. 
 
 Me. J. J. CuETwooD — I have no objection to withdraw my mo- 
 tion. 
 
 The Bishop. — I shall speak here on the perpendicular. It seems 
 to me that there is a great deal of confusion. They speak of the pa- 
 per read before the Court of Bishops as a Report, or the Report ; but 
 it was not a Report, nor the Report. It was just the paper which this 
 Convention, on the 14th of July, instructed that Committee to prepare, 
 and gave them full power in preparing, and then agreed to take it. 
 Now — what ? [A sentence not undersiood.'\ 
 
 It strikes me that the simple view of the subject is this: That Com- 
 mittee were appointed to lay before the Court of Bishops the testi- 
 mony taken by the Committee of Investigation, whose Report had 
 been made to an adjourned Convention, and adopted. They were 
 also appointed to prepare a memorial or representation from this Con- 
 vention, setting forth to the Court of Bishops the legal and canonical 
 rights of this Diocese, and its position in the matter. The paper 
 which has been read to day comes into the body of a historical report ; 
 
 2 
 
18 
 
 and I should say that had the Committee stood aloof and not reported 
 that paper, I should have expected that every member would have 
 risen on this floor, and demanded it. Our Committee, acting with 
 authority, have brought us an honest and faithful report, verbatim, 
 •which they read before the Court. Now it seems to me, that if you 
 hesitate to adopt this paper, you take it as their effoit. 
 
 I do not see any difficulty whatsoever, neither do I see how it is 
 possible any more to refuse to record that which they wrote than that 
 which they did. When they laid before the Court of Bishops the 
 testimony taken, and also the canonical position and rights of the 
 Diocese, how you can divide between these two acts, I cannot con- 
 ceive. After all, when it is accepted, it goes out as the representation 
 of that Committee, indorsed by the Court of Bishops. 
 
 I have said these words not to influence any body's mind at all, 
 but to present the matter as I think it is. It is an act done, and an 
 act reported. It is an act done by power, by authority; bound to be 
 reported, bound to be adopted, as it stands. 
 
 The Bishop having finished his remarks, a member (whose name 
 the Reporter could not learn,) made a few remarks. He said — The 
 Committee did what they considered the proper thing, and have re- 
 ported what they did to the Convention which delegated to them the 
 business. It now remains for the Convention to adopt it. It now 
 remains for us to indorse. It is set before the world as the opinion 
 of this Convention ; therefore it is incumbent on us to give it our 
 formal sanction. Let us adopt what we have authorized, and then if 
 gentlemen wish to bring up resolutions with different sentiments they 
 can do so. 
 
 Mr. Walter Rutherfurd and Hon. Richard P. Thompson followed 
 with a few remarks, which it was inconvenient to report on account 
 of the noise. [Cries of " question," " question."'\ 
 
 Rev. a. B. Patersox — Let us hear those gentlemen. It is urged 
 to lav the Report on the table as the proper course to be pursued in 
 the order of business. I see no good reason for this. 1 have been 
 told that it is not a preliminary proceeding — that it is never done. 
 When the whole subject is fairly before us, we are called upon to 
 meet the question and dispose of it. 
 
 Judge Ogden — Perhaps, Sir, it would be proper that the debate 
 be now opened on what may be considered the merits of the question. 
 The motion to lay on the table, Sir, if I understand any thing about 
 parliamentary rules, . . . 
 
 Thk Bishop — No, no! That is not the motion. The motion is, 
 to adopt. 
 
 Hon. William Halsted — Mr. President, if nobody feels disposed 
 to discuss this question I am inclined to do it myself. 
 
 There is one position taken by the Committee, in which I concur. 
 If 1 mistake not, their 'angnage reads thus: "The power to present 
 necessarily includes the power to inquire." I concur with the Com- 
 mittee in that position, but I deny altogether the inference they draw 
 from that position. I admit that if this body that appointed the Com- 
 mittee of Investigation had the power to present, they had the power 
 to inquire. But I deny tliatthe Convention that appointed that Com- 
 mittee had any power to present. If I understand the power to pre- 
 
19 
 
 sent, it is found in the 3d Canon of the Geneil Convention, to which 
 Canon the Committee themselves refer; but when they refer to this 
 Canon, they do not, I apprehend, give the purport nor the substance 
 of the Canon. They refer to it in this way : they say, Now Canon 
 third of '44 secures to the Convention of the Diocese to which the 
 accused Bishop belongs.^tho right to make presentment, whenever the 
 Convention shall determine b}' a two-thirds vote of each order that 
 their Bishop has committed any of the offenses mentioned in the 
 Canon, and should be put upon his trial. The Committee have stopped 
 short at the most important and controlling feature of the Canon ; 
 and that is the proviso which I propose to read. " Provided, That two- 
 thirds of the Clergy entitled to seats in said Convention be present, 
 and provided also that two-thirds of the parishes in actual union with 
 the said Convention, be represented therein." 
 
 Now, Sir, the three presenting Bishops have stated, (and I want to 
 Bee the evidence to contradict their statement — because, according to 
 my view of it, it all depends upon this) ; they have stated that there 
 ■were not two-thirds of each order present at this special Convention, 
 nor at either Convention. And if two-thirds of both orders were not 
 present, (two-thirds entitled to scats, is the language of the Canon, not 
 to votes, and the same language is carried to the Canon of New Jersey, 
 as I understand it,) the three Bishops then take this objection to the 
 action of the Committee ; and if they are right, it appears to me to be 
 conclusive. This is the language held by the three Bishops : The 
 Canon requires that for such purpose two-thirds of the Clergy entitled 
 to seats shall be present. There were 37 or 38 Clergymen so entitled 
 in New Jersey, but only 22 were present, which is not two thirds of 
 37 or 38. The Canon likewise requires that two-thirds of the parish- 
 es in union with the Convention be represented ; but tiiough there 
 were 59 parishes in the Diocese of N. J., only 28 were so represented. 
 It follows, then, that tlie Convention was never, on the occasions 
 referred to, so constituted as to make a valid presentment of the Bish- 
 op. Now, it follows as an irresistible conclusion, that as the power to 
 inquire only comes from the power to present, and as the power to 
 present only exists prac\'\Ci\\\y when two-thirds of bo'h orders entitled 
 to seats are represented, that the whole proceeding and opening of 
 the Committee was altogether illegal, and their action equally illegal 
 and unconstitutional. But I think the three Bishops have conceded 
 too much. They give to the adversary an admission to which they 
 are not entitled. They say there were 37 Clergymen so entitled. 
 Do they mean to say that but so many were entitled to seats'^. If I 
 can read the Journal, I find that there are (iO Clergymen entitled ; and 
 I find in the Report of the Bishop to the Special Convention, he givea 
 the number, I think, (iO. I think they both concur ; at any rate, if 
 any gentleman will take the trouble to count, he will find that there' 
 are altogether 04, and 57 churches. 'I'hen I say the Bishops conceded 
 too much, when they said there were only 37 or 38. I presume they 
 meanr 37 entitled to vote. 15ut, suppose they were right, (which I do 
 not admit,) 1 say there were CO " entilled to seats," which is the lan- 
 guage of the Canon. I submit, therefore, that, starting fiom the point 
 upon which the Committee place tliemselves, that the power of the 
 Convention to investigate, arises out of the power to present, there was 
 
20 
 
 no power to investigate. Now, if the proposition were a true one, that 
 the Convention was lawfully competent to present, suppose nine- 
 teen members or twenty of e-ich order, out of 32, had made a recom- 
 mendation that the Bishop of this Diocese be presented ; and suppose 
 that a Committee had made out charges, and the Convention decided 
 that the Bishop should bo presented for trial, would that presentment 
 have been valid? It would not, and could not legally have been 
 adopted. The Convention had not the power to adopt it, for they 
 lacked the requisite two-thirds of each order. Now, if we come to 
 the Journal of the Special Convention, we do not find the names of 
 those persons who composed the Convention at all. The list of the 
 Convention as it was composed on the 14th of July, 1852, was not 
 given upon the Journal. It does not appear whether two thirds of 
 the Clergymen or Laymen were present. Now, if gentlemen will 
 take the trouble to look at the Journal of the Convention of the 14th 
 of July, they will find that the vote upon the first resolution was adopt- 
 ed as follows: Ayes of the Clergy, 20; of the Laity, 21 ; and the 
 Nays of the Clergy, 4, and of the Laity, 5. 24 Clergymen voted, and 
 1 declined; 2G Laity voted, 21 in the affirmative, and 5 in the nega- 
 tive. 
 
 That is nothing like two thirds ; it is not two-thirds of 38 or 37. 
 But if, as I say, the Journal shows that persons entitled to seats were 
 60, then it falls very short. I say then, and I affirm, that from the 
 proposition laid down by the i>ishops there is no escape. That Con- 
 vention had no power to do anything in regard to the matter of pre- 
 senting. Therefore it was that I, when those resolutions were offered, 
 objected to them as being illegal. [The Reporter missed a Jew 
 words '\ 
 
 While I am up, and inasmuch as the gentleman from St. Peler's 
 has attempted to show and prove that the gentleman from 
 St. Michael's had notice to attend ' and did not attend, and 
 therefore their proceedings were not ex parte, I beg leave to explain to 
 the gentleman my view of that matter. 
 
 The gentleman fiom St. Michael's had nothing to do with that iccu- 
 sation ; he was not a party. After the three Bishops had made the 
 presentment, they took the whole business out of my hands. I had 
 no control over it. The presentment was not made in my langiiage» 
 nor upon the charges which I, as one of the four Laymen, had laid 
 before them. They did not take all my charges as I desired, nor adopt 
 my course as I wished them. They went in direct opposition. I 
 never would have conceded that their action depended in some meas- 
 ure upon the action of this Convention. Their action was altogether 
 contrary to my views. If my view about it had been adopted, no such 
 letter would have been written to the accused, because there was no 
 Canon to authorize it I conceive they made a mistake, when they 
 sent that letter. Not that they did not do what they thought best, 
 but they made a mistake, in my humble judgment, and I do not hold 
 myself responsible for that at all. 
 
 Hon. D. B. Ryall — The presentment of the three Bishops is a pre- 
 sentment made upon charges by 3'ourself and other gentlemen ; and 
 therefore, for the Committee to give notice to the Bishops of Ohio, 
 Virginia and Maine, would have been idle. 
 
21 
 
 Mr. Halsted— The gentleman has a right to take his view. I only 
 mean to present the view which I taiie, and this ismj view of the mat- 
 ter. The charges made are not my cluifges : they are merely the 
 statements which we gathered from witnesses, which we embodied in 
 due shape ; that the Bishops undertook the business of inquiry, and 
 after investigation, adopted just as many of the charges as they thought 
 proper, and rejected just so many as they thought proper. When 
 they put their names to them, they assumed the responsibility. If I 
 had been disposed, if it had been here wished, I could not have con- 
 trolled it. Therefore the gentleman is altogether mistaken when he 
 supposes that by sending a notice to me, he was sending a notice to a 
 party. All the party were the three Bishops ; and if the party who 
 was the real party had been notified, if the three Bishops had been no- 
 tified, if the}' had sent notice to the three Bishops, it probably might 
 have better answered the purpose of the Committee. 
 
 Mr. Ryall — I will ask the gentleman if he did not address a note 
 to me, asking whether he should appear as a party or counsel ? and my 
 response was, that the gentleman could be received in all of those 
 characters, 
 
 Mr. Halsted — I did so. Sir; and the reason was, I offered an 
 amendment to the resolution appointing and instructing the Commit- 
 tee, That any person might be present and cross examine witnesses, 
 and that any additional charges might be investigated : and I believe, 
 Sir, my amendment was opposed by Judge Ogden, and was afterwards 
 voted down. My amendment to the resolution to allow the papers to 
 be produced, was voted down in this Convention ; and I say that this 
 Committee had no authority to admit another party, when the Con- 
 vention had rejected my amendment. My object in writing that let- 
 ter was for another thing. I wanted to know what powers the Com- 
 mittee conceived they had, and whether they would put upon the re- 
 cord the whole evidence they had before them, and I then held myself 
 disposed to attend. I wanted to know exactly what the Committee 
 thought of the powers they possessed. And since the gentleman put 
 the question to me, I will ask him if I did not send him a list of 38 
 witnesses, and specify each of the charges to be proved by them ? 
 
 Mr. Ryall — You did ; and each of those witnesses were subpe- 
 naed. 
 
 Mr, Halsted — I gave the gentleman the names of 38 witnesses, 
 under the specifications ; and out of those 38 witnesses, only 5 were 
 examined. 
 
 Mr. Ryall — They were all subpcnaed. 
 
 Mr. Halsied — I do not deny that, Sir. The list which I gave 
 contained the names of 38 witnesses. Among those was one written 
 Mr. Button, which should have been Mrs. Button. They ascertained 
 that Mr. Button was dead, and there ceased their efforts. 
 
 Here is a copy from the letter which I sent, containing the names 
 of the witnesses. You will see what I cal\ garbling. 
 
 It reads in this way, what is left out : 
 
 "If the Committee are desirous to make 'a full investigation' into 
 the charges against Bishop Boane, and to attain truth, they may go a 
 great way towards the accomplishment of that object, by obtaining 
 
22 
 
 and laying before the Convention the following documents, as well as 
 the evidence of the following witnesses : 
 
 Si'EciFiCATioN I. 1st— A Certified copy of the assignment of Geo. 
 W. Doane to Garret S. Canhon-and Robert B. Aertsen, dated 26th 
 March, 1849, with the inventory of estate, real and personal, thereto 
 annexed, together with the oaths of George W. Doane, thereto an- 
 ;nexed. 
 
 2d — A certificate from the Clerk of the County of Burlington, of 
 the amount of the mortgages and judgments against G. W. Doane. 
 
 3d — A certificate of judgments confessed by G. W. Doane as Pres- 
 ident of the Trustees of Burlington College, in the Supreme Court 
 and elsewhere. 
 
 Specification II. 1st — Obtain from Bishop Doane an exact list 
 of his creditors at the time of his assignment, and the amount of the 
 debts due to each. If he and Mr. Aertsen cannot make it out, let 
 them, or the Committee, apply to Mrs. C. Lippincott, who, the Bishop 
 ■says in his protest and appeal " was most intimately acquainted with 
 all tliG business risks and relations of the undersigned." 
 
 2d — Obtain from the Bishop or Mr. Aertsen or Mrs. Lippincott, an 
 account of all the sums of money expended in or about ihe Institu- 
 tions, St. Mary's Hall and Burlington College. 
 
 Specification III. Obtain a copy of Mr. Binney's pamphlet, and 
 address Mr. Binney a letter requesting him to give a statement of the 
 facts relative to the transaction between him and Bishop Doane." 
 
 This letter proceeded, giving specifications, and giving under each 
 specification the names of the witnesses or the documents to prove it. 
 NovA', by turning to the Journal of the proceedings of the adjourned 
 Convention, held at N^ewark on the 14th of July last, page 139, you 
 will see how this letter was garbled, by the person, whoever he was, 
 that had charge of the publication of the proceedings of the Com- 
 mittee of Investigation. All that is published of this letter is a list of 
 the names [of thirty-eight witnesses; and out of this number but 
 five were examined. And yet the Convention passed a resolution say- 
 ing, what the ( 'ommittee themselves would not say, viz : that this was 
 " a full searching and honest inquiry info the allegations against the 
 Bishop." 
 
 Notwithstanding all this, the gentleman has said that it was not an 
 ea;^ar/e examination. The gentleman also says that the witnesses 
 were sworn to testify the truth and nothing but the truth. I know that 
 two of the most important witnesses only answered such questions as 
 were put to them, and that [a few icords not understood by the Re- 
 porter.'] So much, therefore, in regard to the idea that this was not 
 an ex parte examination. I consider it altogether ex parte, in the 
 technical and real sense of the term. 
 
 Hon. D. B. Ryall — Mr. Halsted, as Chairman of the Committee, 
 I say that they were sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and 
 nothing but the truth, and then requested to state all that they knew 
 about the matter. 
 
 Judge Ogden — I rise to a point of order. My point of order is, that 
 we are discussing matters with which we have nothing to do. At the 
 Convention on the 26th of May, a Committee was appointed, clothed 
 
23 
 
 with power to make a certain investigation. That Committee re- 
 ported their action to an adjourned meeting on the 14th of July, The 
 records of that Convention show that the Report was accepted, 
 adopted and approved. And that Cofivention appointed another 
 Committee to wait on the Court of Bishops and lay before them the 
 result of the Convention of the 14th of July, and also lay before the 
 House of Bishops a statement of the position and rights of the Dio- 
 cese. That Committee have done their act, and reported to us a his- 
 tory of their proceedings. The question is not, what have we to do 
 with this or that ? but the simple question under the motion made and 
 seconded, is, shall we adopt their Report ? I suggest that whether it 
 will not shorten the gentleman's argument — [//te rest of the sentence 
 was not heard.^ 
 
 Hojv. William Halsted — The learned Judge will recollect that 
 the matter before the Convention was the Report of the Committee of 
 this Convention. In arguing the adoption of that Report, the gentle- 
 man from St. Peter's went out of his way, to attack the Reply of the 
 three presenting Bishops. Now, surely, v/hen those three Bishops 
 are attacked^ and nobody is here to defend them, it cannot be out of 
 order to speak for them. But, if this defense of the action of the 
 Bishops is not in order, why was not the introduction of the matter 
 by the gentleman from St. Peter's questioned, as out ot order ? The 
 thing speaks for itself — it needs no comments. 
 
 However, I am perfectly willing to let that matter pass, and pro- 
 ceed to the remarks I propose to make in regard to the other part of 
 this question. 
 
 As I stated before, the first reason why I cannot adopt the Report 
 of the Committee, is that, in my opinion, it is based upon an erroneous 
 view of the law under which they act. If I am right in that, then the 
 whole of the Report is erroneous, and all the arguments based upon 
 that showing, must be erroneous. 
 
 If this Convention allow this Report to be adopted, without a free 
 expression of opinion on the subject, it will go abroad as an undis- 
 puted adoption ; and consequently it must adopt also those views 
 which the Committee have thought proper to separate and read be- 
 fore this Convention — for the purpose of producing an effect, I pre- 
 sume. It was not necessary, according to my view, that the Report 
 should be read here. It would have answered every purpose, to have 
 said that they had presented their Report to the House of Bishops. 
 But inasmuch as that Report has been read here, in the presence of 
 the assembled Convention, and of this audience, and as that Report 
 is, certainl}', very eloquently drawn, and very plausible, it will pei haps 
 have its efiect. And therefore I hold that those gentlemen who do not 
 concur with the sentiments put forth in that paper, ought to have the 
 opportunity of expressing their dissent. The adoption should not be 
 pressed till we have spoken our opinions upon it. 
 
 I hold, in the next place, that when the Convention in July ap- 
 pointed that Committee, that that Committee had no right to present 
 a memorial of that kind. And I go further; I say we have a right 
 here to discuss the propriety of that Committee interfering with the 
 regular canonical proceeding of the Court of Bishops. I say that 
 this thing could not have been contemplased, that a Committee of this 
 
24 
 
 body, or any other body, should intervene between the accused and 
 the accusers, and say that they asked that Court not to proceed. 
 They exceeded, in my view, wholly, the power which they possessed. 
 
 Here some person said, The gentleman will read the resolui ion. It 
 was read as follows : 
 
 " Resolved, That a Committee of four clergymen and three laymen 
 be appointed, by ballot, to lay the Report of the Committee and the 
 accorripanying evidence before the Court appointed for the trial of the 
 Bishop, and that such committee present a written representation on 
 behalf of this Convention, setting forth its legal and canonical position 
 and rights, and earnestly and respectfully urging the Right Reverend 
 Bishops to consider, whether (apart from all abstract questions of 
 power,) it will be wise or just, or for the peace of God's church, to 
 proceed further upon the charges laid before them." 
 
 Now what do thev undertake to do? They were in the first place 
 to lay the Report of the Committee before the Bishops, and then this 
 Committee are to present a written representation on behalf of the 
 Convention, setting forth the legal and canonical rights of ihe Dio- 
 cese. They undertook to go on and set forth the position of the Dio- 
 cese, and some of those leading canonical rights. They say that they 
 have the first right to try ; and they say that, the Bishops, 
 having no power to try, must stop the prosecution which had been 
 commenced in that Court, and send it back here. {The Reporter lost 
 a few sentences here.'] 
 
 But further, it calls earnestly and respectfully upon the Right Rev- 
 erend Bishops to consider, whether apart from all abstract questions 
 of power, they should proceed with the trial. Now I say, to construe 
 this resolution in the wa}' which they undertake to construe it, is to 
 construe it in such a manner as no member had the least conception 
 of. I venture to say, that no lawyer would allow such a construction 
 of this Resolution. When a Bishop has been presented for trial, no 
 third party can lawfully be permitted to intervene between the pre- 
 sentment and the action of the Court. There is no provision for such 
 intervention in the Canon. The Canon reads thus. It is Canon HI 
 of 1844, Section 3. 
 
 " Upon a Presentment made in either of the modes pointed out in 
 Section 1 of this Canon, the course of proceeding shall be as follows: 
 
 " Section 3, The Presiding Bishop shall, without delay, cause a 
 copy of the Presentment to be served on the accused, and shall give 
 notice, with nil convenient speed, to the several Bishops then being 
 within the territory of the United States, appointing a time and place 
 for their assembling together; and any number thereof, not being less 
 than seven, other than the Bishops presenting, then and there assem- 
 bled, shall constitute the Court for the trial of the accused; he shall 
 also at the same time, cause at least thirtj' days' notice of the time 
 and place of meeting to be given, both to the accused and to the parties 
 presenting him, by a snmmoner to be appointed by him, and shall also 
 call on the accused by a written summons to appear and answer. 
 The place of trial shall always be within the Diocese in which the ac- 
 cused Bishop resides. If the accused Bishop appear hpfore proceeding 
 to trial, he shall be called on by the Court to say whether he is guilty 
 or not guilty of the offense or offenses charged against him ; and on his 
 
25 
 
 neglect or refusal, the plea of not guilty shall be entered for him, and 
 the trial shall proceed/' 
 
 Here, then, the trial by a Court of Bishops is defined and restricted 
 by the terms of the Canon. The accused has only to appear, and to 
 plead either guilty or not guilty ; and then the Canon says, the trial 
 shall proceed. Now, I say, ti'at it never could have been contem- 
 plated that any other body should get up in Court when the present- 
 ment is about to be read, and say : May it please your honors, we 
 think you ought not to proceed with this case. We have nothing to do 
 with it; we are outsiders; but we take an interest in the matter, and 
 beg that you will not go on. I would ask my learned friend, the 
 Judge, if he ever had any such occurrences as this at his Bar; and I 
 ask him what he would do if a party not recognized by the law, should 
 undertake to interfere with the course of justice? The learned Judge 
 would say : What business have you here ? It is pointed out by the law 
 that the Court shall proceed ; it is perfectly well understood. We do 
 not know you as a party here at all. But now it is said that the Diocese 
 may importune the Court of Bishops, and say, no, no, Sirs, don't try 
 the accused; we think there is nothing in these charges, and therefore 
 we beg you will not proceed. Why, it seems to me, that if the Com- 
 mittee were entirely satisfied, they are bound, as members of the 
 Church, to have the Bishop cleared of those charges; and I say that 
 it never was stated to the Convention, that the Bishop of this Diocese 
 wished a trial, and that we had appointed a Committee to prevent that 
 trial taking place ; and I say they did the Bishop injustice. If he was 
 innocent, as they believed him to be, it was their bounden duty as 
 members of the Church, t<> vindicate the Bishop. Does not the world 
 ask, does not the peace of the Church require, that the criminations of 
 the Bishop be stopped? And it is only to be stopped by having a 
 regular trial; and if the Bishop were innocent, and wished a trial, it 
 was the duty of those individuals to say he shall have a trial. 
 
 1 ask, who has any confidence in the Report of the Committee? 
 Nine Bishops to eight, have said they have no confidence in it. 
 
 Mr. Halsted was here interrupted by the Bishop, who said. You have 
 intentionally misstated the facts. There were not nine Bishops who 
 said they had no confidence in the representation of the Committee. 
 There was not one Bishop who said so. The issue was this, and upon 
 the motion made that the Court proceed no further, eight of the Bishops 
 voted in favor of it, and six against it. It was thus decided not to 
 proceed. I cannot permit these false statements to go uncontradicted. 
 
 Mk. Halsted continued — The statement which 1 made is not false 
 — it is true, and I will prove it. The three presenting Bishops de- 
 clared before the Court that they believed the accused Bishop to be 
 guilty, and that they stood prepared to prove their charges, and six 
 of the Bishops were in favor of trying. Now that makes nine, ac- 
 cording to my view. Eight of them voted not to proceed with the 
 trial. 
 
 I say then, and I affirm it, that nine Bishops of the Church have 
 declared that this trial ought to go on, and it was the duty of the 
 Court that the trial should have proceeded. I say again, who can 
 have confidence in the Report of the Committee ? 1 say nothing 
 against the gentlemen of the Committee. But what is the rule of 
 
26 
 
 law? The first is to do justice, and the second is to satisfy the public 
 that justice has been done. Now I ask the Chairman of that Com- 
 mittee, himself, if he as counsel, had been trying a case for one of his 
 clients before a jury, and a gentleman situated as he is in regard to 
 one of the parties, was summoned upon that jury, whether he would 
 accept him as a jur^'man ? Most assuredly that gentleman would 
 not; as an honorable lawyer he could not but do otherwise. Now I 
 ask, who could have confidence in a Committee composed of the 
 Bishop's creditors ? I say that no man can have any such confidence, 
 and that the public could not. '1 hey were an interested party, and 
 those very motives, not at all dishonorable to those gentlemen, which 
 made them desirous to shield the l^ishop, unfitted them to judge im- 
 partially. We are all operated upon by our feelings and prejudices. 
 
 Mr. Rvall — I am not the Bishop's creditor. 
 
 Mr. Halsted — No sir; but some others of the Committtee I 
 mean. Three of them are trustees, one is creditor, and all are inter- 
 ested 
 
 Mr. Potter — I undertake to say, Mr. Halsted, that you, nor no- 
 body know whether I am a creditor or not. 
 
 Mr. Halsted — I state as a fact that Mr. Potter had a judgment 
 against the College. Here is the document in my pocket, if you want 
 to see it. 
 
 Hon. R. p. Thompson — I rise to a question of order. Is there 
 one single word in the gentleman's argument addressed to the point 
 before the Convention ? The subject is a simple one, and yet he is 
 going into an attack on the Committee. Now, I do hold that it is not 
 proper to debate in this way. 
 
 The Bishop — I consider that the gentleman has been out of order 
 during the whole discussion, and most exceedingly personal, and must 
 decide that he is out of order. 
 
 Mr. Halsted — I presumed that you would so decide, and therefore 
 moved at the proper time, that we should go into Committee of the 
 Whole. 
 
 The Bishop — You cannot make a motion to go into Committee 
 of the Whole while I occupy this chair. 
 
 Mr. Halsted — I had a perfect right to reply to the gentleman from 
 St. Peter's, and I had a perfect right to answer his attack on the three 
 Bishops. 
 
 Hon. R. p. Thompson — The way of settling this matter is, when a 
 man is out of order, to pronounce it so, and the gentleman is to take 
 his seat. 
 
 Mr. Joel W. Condit — In my judgment the gentleman is entirely 
 out of order. If it therefore be proper, I move that the motion to 
 adopt the Report of the Committee be laid on the table. 
 
 A Member — I suppose the subject can be called up again hereafter 
 for further discussion, and if so, I have no objection to lay it on the 
 table for the present. But if it is meant to keep it out of the way, by 
 laying on the table, I am opposed to it. 
 
 The Bishop — There has already been too much discussion on the 
 subject, and it ought to stop. 
 
 The question on laying the motion to adopt on the table, is now the 
 question. 
 
27 
 
 Mr. W. Rutherfurd — That subject has not yet been debated at 
 all : and I take it, that if it is laid on the table, it will shut off discus- 
 sion altogether. 
 
 The Bishop — It is not in order to speak under the motion to lay 
 on the table. 
 
 The question is now to lay on the table a motion to adopt the Re- 
 port of the Committee. 
 
 Mr. Thompsoiv — When it is laid on the table, what becomes of it? 
 
 It lays there, and sleeps the sleep of death ; and thus a Committee 
 appointed by this Convention, instructed to go and do a certain thing, 
 after having returned and stated to this Convention a narrative of 
 their procedings, shall have that narrative hushed, by having no part 
 therein — not permitted to state to the Convention, in such a way 
 that the Diocese may know, what they have done. I trust that no 
 such injustice will be done to the Committee. They have a right 
 to have their proceedings recorded among the proceedings of this 
 Convention. It is also customary, when the report of a committee is 
 read, to accept and adopt it. 1 recollect two years ago the same 
 thing took place in this Convention ; the Report of the Committee 
 was I rinted in the Journals; and if this course had been taken in the 
 present instance, all this miserable discussion would have been pre- 
 vented. 
 
 The resolution to adopt the Report of the Committee was with- 
 drawn by the mover. 
 
 Hon. Wsi. Halsted — I now move, That we go into Committee of 
 the Whole. 
 
 The Bishop — You're out of order. Sir, you're out of order. I 
 can't permit this interference with my rights. 
 
 Mr. Halsted — [amid cries of " order," " order."'\ — I insist on it, 
 that my motion is not out of order. It is right and proper; and I 
 appeal to the Rules of Order adopted by this Convention, in which 
 provision is made for going into Committee of the Whole. I repeat 
 it, Sir, that it is not I who am out of order, but it is you who are out 
 of order, for you have refused to put my motion which I made. {Re- 
 peated cries of " order."] 
 
 Mr. Morton — I move that the gentleman be expelled from this 
 Convention. I move that we expel him. 
 
 Mr. Halsted — I should like to see them do that. I have my 
 rights, and 1 shall maintain them. [Much co7fusion.] 
 
 Order being restored, Mr. J. J. Chetwood rose, and moved as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 " Whereas, the Court of Bishops, assembled on the 7th of Octo- 
 ber, instant, did, on the 15th, adopt the following Orders, to wit: 
 
 " Whereas, previous to the making of the presentment now before 
 this Court, the Convention of New Jersey have investigated most of 
 the matters contained therein, and have determined that there was no 
 ground for presentment: Therefore, Ordered, That as to the matters 
 transacted upon by said Convention, this Court do not feel themselves 
 called vpon to proceed further. 
 
 " Whereas, the Diocese of New Jersey stands pledged to investi- 
 gate any charges against the Bishop that may be presented from every 
 responsible source ; and whereas, a Special Convention has been 
 
28 
 
 called, shortly to meet in reference to the new matters contained in 
 the presentment now before the Court. Therefore, Ordered, That 
 this Court, reljing upon the said pledge, will not now proceed to any 
 further action in the premises :" 
 
 Therefore, Resolved, Tiiat the new matters contained in the pre- 
 sentment read before that Court, be referred to Jas. Potter, J. H. 
 Wakefield, C. M. Marker, D. P>. Ryall, T. H. Whitney, Henry Mc- 
 Farlan, and J. L. McKnight, with instructions to proceed with dili- 
 gence and with all convenient dispatch, to make a full investigation 
 of the new matters contained in the paper aforesaid, and that they re- 
 port to the Convention. 
 
 Resoloed, That the Committee have power to fill any vacancy oc- 
 curring among its members. 
 
 Resolved, That when this Convention adjourn, they adjourn to meet 
 in this Church at 10 o'clock, a. m., on the 1st of December. 
 
 Hon. R. p. Thompson — ?ylr. President, I move to strike out all the 
 names in the first Resolution. I have not done this without reflecting. 
 It does seem to me proper, that this investigation should be referred 
 to others than those who served on the former Committee. Not that 
 I have any doubts as to the impartiality with which the same Com- 
 mittee who conducted the former investigation would act in this case, 
 if it is referred to them to examine: It is entirely on other grounds — 
 as a matter of expediency and propriety. While I make this motion, 
 I have the most perfect confidence in the gentlemen named. 
 
 Mr. Chetwood — I accept (he amendn;ent most cheerfully ; but in- 
 asmuch as reference was made to them in the argument of the three 
 Bishops before the Court, impeaching their veracity', and reflecting 
 upon several of them as unfit to conduct an investigation which the 
 Convention had referred to them ; I felt it my duty, under the cir- 
 cumstances, that these gentlemen be retained, to show to those Bish- 
 ops and to the world, that every citizen of New Jersey who knows 
 them, has unabated confidence in them. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Starr — I rise to a question of order. It has already 
 been said on this floor, that the Canon of the General Convention re- 
 quires that there shall be present two thirds of the Clergy of the Dio- 
 cese entitled to seats, and lay-delegates from two-thirds of the par- 
 ishes. I rise to know whether, now, this is the case. I would like, 
 therefore, a call, to know what clergymen are entitled to seats, and 
 how many are present ; and what laymen entitled to seats, and how 
 many are present in this Convention. 
 
 The Bishop — [The opening sentence not heard-l In the first place, 
 nobody has here pretended that the Canon requires two thirds, except 
 in case where the Convention proceeds to present. And, suppose an 
 inquiry now to be instituted ; the time for the call will be when the 
 Committee, to which the charges are referred, report to the Conven- 
 tion. But this matter was fully discussed before the Court of Bishops. 
 In addition to the discussion in the pamphlet printed, one of the Bish- 
 ops stated that the strength, virtue and essence of the whole matter 
 lay in these two things: that the Convention of the 14th of July, in 
 order to be able to present, must have been constituted of two-thirds 
 of each order; and then a round assertion, which was far from true, 
 that two-thirds were not there. Now, then, upon that, the Court of 
 
29 
 
 Bishops decided that the application of the two-thirds principle does 
 not hold, except on the direct motion to present. By a unanimous 
 decision, they decided, (the President of the Court, the Bishop of Ver- 
 mont, saying that it was not at all applicable,) decided that though 
 two-thirds were necessary in order to present, yet a vote not to pre- 
 sent, only required the usual quorum ; and no Bishop of the Court 
 dissented from this opinion. 
 
 But I have a word to sny further. As I proved before the Court, 
 there were iivo thirds present at the last Convention. The facts were 
 not correctly stated by the three Bishops. Doubtless they had beeu 
 told, as they stated ; and their informant is, I think, now present in this 
 Convention. I hope, he meant to state the thing as it was. 
 
 I could have saved the gentleman from St. Michael's a great deal of 
 trouble, if he had come to me. Why, in regard to the Clergy, 34 are 
 the Clergy entitled to seats in this Ci)nvention, and wi(hin two or three 
 fractions of a man, 40 were theie. I believe the gentleman is honestly 
 in error. I would like to pat him righc on this and all other subjects, 
 if he would let me. [A few words not heard.^ Now I wish this 
 matter understood. The two-thirds principle never will a[iply unless 
 you present ; and if it is applied under the question of presentment, it 
 cannot be denied. I merely say this to save time — nothing else in the 
 world. If anybody else could have said it, I had rather they would. 
 
 Mk. ArchbrGifforu — I admit. Sir, that upon this occasion there 
 is no necessity of having the number of two-thirds of each order pres- 
 ent. It is requisite, under a certain issue stated in the Canon concern- 
 ing the Presentment and Trial of a Bishop. But this is not an occa- 
 sion of presentment — that is most ceitain. Neither is it nocessiry, I 
 conceive, in regard to the business now before us. 
 
 But the matter vviiich I have in my mind at present is a question of 
 propriety — of right, in respect to tins body. 1 do not conceive, Sir, 
 that the settlement of this question is of any consequence as to the 
 main issue. It was not necessarily involved in the real issue before 
 the Court. I am a friend to order and strict laws ; but I cannot see 
 that this is of any consequence now, and it is not the time for it. 
 
 The Bishop — I laid it down only as a simple historical fact. 
 
 A Member — It appears to mo that the call made by the gentleman 
 from Trenton is very summarily disposed of, and the course taken in 
 regard to it strikes me as being wrong. Here is a member of this 
 body, who gets up and states a fact, as required under the Canon. 
 He asks if there is a Canonical number present. Is it not proper that 
 such should be the case ? It appears to me. Sir, that it is a very 
 proper question. 
 
 Anothkr Memrer — Does the gentleman mean to make a motion, 
 or what does he intend by his remarks ? The member interrogated 
 replied : ! would simply say that I did not intend to make a motion 
 at all. I meant what 1 remark^'d as a suggestion. I care not whether 
 it is adopted or not. 
 
 [Here some remarks were made between Mr. Ryall and Mr. Parker, 
 which the Reporter was unable to nofe.'\ 
 
 Mk. Bkowning — The particular business now before us I under- 
 stand to be, the appointment of a Committee of Investigation on the 
 new charges which have been made. The motion, as first made, was 
 
30 
 
 that the names of certain gentlemen who acted as Committee on the 
 former investigation, should constitute this Committee. An amend- 
 ment to strike out all the names included in the Resolution has been 
 moved and accepted. It then stands in the shape of a Resolution to 
 appoint a Committee, but leaving the namps to be afterwards supplied. 
 And permit me to say a single word in relation to that, whilst I am 
 up. I have no objection to the Resolution being in blank ; it is per- 
 haps as well to first enact the Resolution, and then, by nomination, fill 
 it up. But, to my mind, there is but one course p'-oper for us to pur- 
 sue, in adding the names to fill it up. In my view, it would he an 
 impeachment, to appoint a neiv Committee — I mean a Committee 
 made up of different members than those who composed the former 
 Committee of Investigation. I think, looking upon it as I do, I think 
 that we owe it as a matter of justice to those gentlemen. They faith- 
 fully discharged their duty when the first charges were referred to them 
 to investigate, and the whole business ought to be completed by them. 
 
 It is said that several of the members of this Committee are credit- 
 ors of the Bishop, and therefore interested in having hicn sustained. 
 Now, it occurs to me, that this objection belongs to the opposite side. 
 For creditors, usually, when they consider that iheir debts are hope- 
 less, sympathise vi'ith fellow-creditors. 
 
 It is also said that some of those gentlemen are Trustees of the 
 College, and that one of them has children in the College. But I 
 cannot see that this should make us doubtful as to their moral integ- 
 rity, or make us hesitate in entrusting this business to their hands. 
 Looking, therefore, at the matter, in the view I take of it, there is 
 nothing existing in the relations of the members of this Committee to 
 the Bishop, which renders it necessary that a new Committee should 
 be chosen. 
 
 The Bishop — It is not generally known, that the lay delegate from 
 Trenton is a Trustee of Burlington College. It may be proper, how- 
 ever, to add, that, although he was appointed one of the Board of 
 Trustees, he has, I believe, attended none of their meetings. 
 
 Mk. Halsted — The Bishop has made an attack on me. I am a 
 Trustee of Burlington College — not put there, though, by my solicit- 
 ation. I did attend one meeting; but I found that my attending 
 there could be of no avail. ! found that, there, as here, I was in the 
 minority, and presumed I always should be in the minority; and 
 therefore I stayed away — not wishing to take any kind of responsi- 
 bility in its affairs. I disapproved of the policy and course which 
 was adopted and pursued, running in debt as the Trustees did — or as 
 the Bishop did, which is all the same ; for, the Bishop, I may say, 
 was both head and body ; and what he determined for them, they did ; 
 and after a while, they left the whole of the management to him en- 
 tirely. That is why I have not co-operated with the Trustees, and 
 why I cannot. 
 
 Judge Ogden — Then why don't you resign ? 
 
 Mk. Halsted — I have had hints to that effect from the same quar 
 ter before. They have urged me to resign. But I don't intend to; 
 for there may be a time — the time may come, when my presence and 
 Yote may be of use as a Trustee ; and when it is, I shall be there. 
 
 Mr. Ryall-— I should have, Mr. President, no objection to serve on 
 
31 
 
 the Committee; bat I submit to the consideration of this Convention, 
 whether it would not be better, under the circumstances, to have an- 
 other lay-Committee, of equal number; for this appears to be a new 
 complaint. The old Committee, Sir, were placed in the Committee, 
 not by their own choice; no man upon that Committee sought the 
 place. We saw, in the first place, that it was a season of the year 
 in which we must make man}' personal sacrifices. I speak in refer- 
 ence to myself. Sir; I had intended to make a visit to my brother, 
 whom I had not seen for fourteen years. But I do think, Sir, that in- 
 asmuch as this is a new charge, it is better to have a new Committee 
 appointed. 
 
 I know very well the feelings which. Sir, the Committee entertain, 
 in preferring to be relieved. It does not stand upon the opinion of 
 those three Bishops. God forbid that it should ! 
 
 Why, Sir, is it a sin, with these three Bishops, for a man to be a 
 Trustee of the College? But, Sir, it is not at all improbable, 3'ou 
 may select others, Sir, that are not thus liable to objection. I think it 
 would he better, and I wish it to be so. I know it to be the wish of 
 my colleagues. We have taken the responsibility upon ourselves ; 
 we have placed the result of it before the Convention ; no voice has 
 been raised against it here, and we stand upon it and upon our own 
 integrity ; not upon the opinii)ns of those Bishops. 
 
 Rbv. Mu. Southard — I was about to mnke a few remarks upon 
 the subject of the appointment of the same gentlemen who composed 
 that Committee before. I would not say a single word, unless I felt 
 that, by this means, we should not only hazard, but lose forever, much 
 of the victory which we have won. 
 
 It is said by the honorable gentleman who has just resumed his 
 seat, and who argues with much feeling, that it is a new presentment, 
 abstractly considered, which they will be appointed to investigate. I 
 utterly dissent; and I think I might with safety appeal to those who 
 were instrumental in procuring the presentment. 
 
 There are four different charges appended to the first presentment; 
 but those charges were added, as it was confessed by the Bishops on 
 the trial, partly to make up the case. There was the confession, that 
 after the time of the first appointment had passed, the presentment 
 would not be canonical and legal. Accordingly, it was done over 
 again, with these \'e\\ additions, and some slight verbal alterations. It 
 is not, therefore, a new presentment. And, furthermore, it is conceded 
 and confessed, that every charge added to that old presentment, was 
 known before that presentment was made. I submit, therefore, that 
 it is one case not two: One case of charge of criminality. Yes; I 
 again repeat — It is one case. Twenty seven charges, I believe, have 
 been investigated now; four others have been added. Shall the Corn- 
 mittee, then, who have had the labor, as we grant, and I may sav, who 
 have had the honor to investigate those charges, shall the}' be dismissed, 
 and the paltry amount of those charges, got up for effect, for a purpose, 
 forming so small a fraction of the paper, be commitied to seven other 
 men to investigate? Are the}' incompetent? Are they unwilling to 
 complete the investigation that is proposed ? 
 
 But one word (nore. I said that I felt that by setting aside the 
 members of the former Conmiittee, we should lose much of the vie- 
 
32 
 
 tory which we had won. I feel that there might have been an object 
 in the aspersions which were cast upon the character of those who 
 constituted the Committee. I feel that, whether you grant, directly 
 or indirectly, that the members of the Committee are incompetent to 
 examine these charges, you destroy the confidence of men in the Report 
 which they have already made. You take away their sincerity when they 
 said that they were satisfied. You practically allow that they were 
 unworthy, or at least incompetent ; that you had better appoint better 
 men. There are no better men. The majority of the Court of 
 Bishops have decided that their investigation was impartial and com- 
 plete, so far as the ends of justice could require. Shall we let, then, 
 the opposition, who scruple not to cast aspersions upon individual 
 character, shall we let the opposition triumph, in compelling us to 
 substitute on that Committee other men in the place of those who 
 have been tried ? [A few words not heard^ And I appeal, now, 
 whether or not the interest of all concerned — whether that high, 
 straight-forward, manly course, which has been pursued throughout 
 this investigation, is not to be affected by their retiring from this Com- 
 mittee ? I ask, if they have already won your confidence, whether 
 that confidence should not require that you appoint them to finish the 
 investigation ? I would urge you to be consistent in this matter, and 
 maintain your ground, by appointing the same Committee. Stand to 
 it, then, like men assailed. 8tand to it, with that confidence which 
 you express. The Church c;ills for it. I ask for it, individually, as a 
 member of this Diocese, assailed and torn, as far as it can be, by dis. 
 sentions. I ask it, for that Right Reverend Father. I ask it, for the 
 Church. 
 
 Mk. Walter Ruthekfukd — Mr. Presif^ent : As I understand, from 
 the Report we had from the Committee this morning, and also from 
 representations which j^ou made to us this morning, that it was your 
 wish, to be tried by the Court ot Bishops, and that in urging the me- 
 morial of the Committee that the Court should not proceed, you were 
 not arguing for yourself, but only for the rights of the Diocese; and 
 as I understand that the posiiion taken by the Committee who repre- 
 sented the Convention of New Jersey before the Bishops, was a bar 
 against their proceeding with the trial, and stood between the Bishop 
 and the Court; I therefore offer, as a substitute for what has been 
 moved, the following Preamble and Resolution : 
 
 Whereas, It appears by tiie Report of a Committee appointed hy 
 this Convention, to investigate certain charges against the Right Rev. 
 George W. Doane, Bishop of this Diocese, that only a portion of the 
 witnesses were examined before them, and scarcely any on whose 
 evidence the presentment rested : And, 
 
 Whereas, The Right Rev. Bishops of Ohio, Virginia and Maine, 
 possessing this Report of the Committee, and the evidence taken by 
 themselves, have published a document under their official signatures, 
 publicly proclaiming their belief that the Right Rev. George W. 
 Doane, Bishop of this Diocese, is guilty of certain grave and serious 
 ofllences, impugning his moral character, and tending to impair his 
 usefulness, and declaring that they stand full-handed with the proof 
 of the charges in such presentment; 
 
 Resolved, That the Right Rev. Gdorge W. Doane, Bishop of this 
 
33 
 
 Diocese, be earnestly solicited to demand from his Peers a trial of 
 these charges, in order that public opinion may be satisfied, and his 
 . character sustained in the Church. 
 
 The Bishop — I have been consecrated a Bishop of the Church of 
 God, and am not to be instructed by laymen. I cannot believe — (it 
 would belie the honored name he wears) — I will not believe, that the 
 mover of this Resolution intends it as a personal insult. [There were 
 some further remarhs here ; hut the utterance of the speaker became 
 so hurried, that the Reporter was unable to follow.'] 
 
 Rev. David Brown here read a speech of considerable length, 
 which is not reported, as reliance was placed upon the manuscript 
 being furnished, which has failed. 
 
 Mr Rutherfurd — As I understood from the Report read by the 
 Committee who went before the Court of Bishops, they took that 
 course for the independence of the Diocese, and to protect their rights ; 
 and that apart from the action of the Convention, which stood as a 
 bar between the Bishop and the Court of Bishops, you were not only 
 willing, but desirous, to have a trial. The position taken by the Con- 
 vention, it seems, and the course pursued by the Committee, was all 
 that prevented the trial from proceeding. Well : my Resolution goes 
 merely to remove this, that the Bishop may be left free to act for him- 
 self, according to the dictates of his own judgment, as he has expressed 
 it. 
 
 The Bishop — The Committee made some remark about the Bishop 
 desiring a trial. I went ro the Court of Bishops, to be tried. I was 
 not tried; nor even called upon to plead "guiltv," or "not guilty." 
 The Bishops, for sufficient reasons, laid before them by the Committee 
 of this Convention, decided that they would proceed no further — that 
 there should be no trial — that they would not entertain the charges — 
 though the Presenters urged it. 
 
 Now this gentleman from Jersey City puts together these two or 
 three things as the basis of a Resolution, which he moves, That this 
 Convention urge me to demand a trial, to satisfy -public opinion, and 
 sustain my character! I put such a Resolution! Never — never — 
 never! Did anj'body ever hear of a layman calling upon a Bishop to 
 put a proposition like that? So far as it concerns me, that the Con- 
 vention call upon me to request to be tried, I shall do no such thing. 
 It's too absurd to talk about. When I am arraigned, and the question 
 of " Guilty or Not Guilty ?" is asked, I will answer it. I will not 
 go through the absurdity of proposing such a Resolution here. [A 
 few other remarks, which the Reporter could not follow.] 
 
 I speak with perfect respect, with perfect kindness ; but I must 
 speak freely. I cannot permit such interference with my ri<j-hts — 
 with what belongs to my office as a Bishop. I have that sense of re- 
 sponsibility — that which no other man in this house has. I presume 
 the gentleman will not urge his Resolution. I may assure the gentle- 
 man, I wish he had asked me in private if he thought there was occa- 
 sion for such a singular request. But it has been brought out here in 
 guch a way that I must express some very small part of my feelings. 
 
 A Bishop has obligations which no man of his Diocese can under- 
 stand or enter into. His position is altogether separate and peculiar. 
 
34 
 
 He stands by himself. He is a king. There are points in which no 
 counsel can be permitted to come in. 
 
 Mr. Ruthkrfurd — I would beg leave to say, as there has been no 
 imputation against me of hostile or unworthy motives, I would merely 
 say that I understood the position of the case to be this : That the 
 Committee placed great stress upon the rights of the Diocese — that 
 the coui-se taken by them in regard to the trial, which resulted in de- 
 feating it, was independent of yourself — and that all that stood in the 
 way and prevented the trial, was the action of this Convention. I 
 also understood that you, on behalf of the Committee, as representing 
 the Diocese and its rights, that you considered, in the appeal that you 
 there made, that you stood independent of yourself, and w re acting for 
 them — that by these means, or by action of theirs, the Committee of 
 this Convention had interfered with your free action, in regard to hav- 
 ing a trial upon the charges niade against you. 
 
 Hon. James Parker — I ought to begin perhaps, with an apology 
 to the Convention, for troubling them at this time, after so much time 
 has been spent in the discussion of small matters before them. 
 
 You will recollect that when this Report was brought in, I suggested 
 the propriety of striking out that part of it which was composed of the 
 arguments made use of by the Committee before the House of Bish- 
 ops, anxiously requesting them not to try the cause submitted to them 
 by the three Bishops. If my sugges ion had been followed, we would 
 have avoided an irritating deb.ite. I am glad only on one account, 
 that my suggestion did not take place; because if it had, I and this 
 Convention would have been prevented from hearing the plain, forci- 
 ble argument of the gentleman from Christ Church, in Newark, in 
 which the question is placed in so complete and forciljle a light, that all 
 must see that the only proper way to put an end to this troublesome 
 affiiir, was to have the trial go on before the Court of Bishops. In 
 any observations that 1 may make, I wish to preface them l»y the dec- 
 laration that 1 do not undertake to say that the charges made by the 
 three Bishops are true, nor if they were true do I undertake to say 
 what is the degree of moral or legal guilt that would follow from the 
 proof ol the facts. 
 
 The Bishop is charged with these offenses ; they may be true or 
 untrue ; but, feir, I do say that the public mind is imbued with the 
 idea that the Bishop of this Diocese is charged with facts that destroy 
 his character as a Bishop before the community, and there can be no 
 cure for that but a trial. 
 
 What is the investigation of this Committee? Whoever these gen- 
 tlemen are they are the personal friends of the Bishop; they have 
 formed and expressed opinions upon the subject, and could they con- 
 vict the Bishop? No; nor could they sutficiently clear him; they 
 constituted a Court by themselves, it was a selt-constituted Court; 
 and when the witnesses were summoned, the most important of them 
 said that it was not a proper Court, and they would not go ; and in 
 the face of that absent testimony the Committee have reported that 
 the Bishop was not guilty. Now, Sir, if 1 had been an enemy to the 
 Bishop — which I am not, and I trust the Bishop knows it— if I had 
 been an enemy to the Church 1 should wish the thing to take the 
 very course it has taken. Eight of the Bishops have acceded to our 
 
35 ' 
 
 request, and said they would not try the Bishop. As a humble individ- 
 ual, a layman, I say it — I say that th Church is suffering every day; 
 and that the further we progress, and the more we continue to act, 
 the more will the Church suffer. It has been remarked by the hin- 
 orable President, that it would be a very strange thing that a maa 
 charged with crime was solicited to demand a trial. 
 
 Well, now, I believe that in the army or navy, the least impeach- 
 ment is followed by a request to be tried. I think I have known some 
 Bishops who have requested to be tried, and why should any one 
 shrink from it? [A few words not heard.'\ 
 
 Well, iSir, if the rule here is to be sic volo, sic juheo, if the Bishop 
 is to rule the Convention in this absolute fashion, we had better put 
 on our hats and go home. I do not tliink it is an indelicate question 
 or an improper one. I understand that the Bishop of this Diocese, 
 when we ask him to put a question, says he will not be dictated to. 
 Now, if that is to be the rule, I am not disposed to waste time in dis- 
 cussing propositions until I know that the President will put them. 
 
 Hon. J. W. Miller. — Mr. President, I did not intend. Sir, to take 
 any part in the debate to-niglit; but these questions have assumed 
 such a shape, that 1 can no longer be quiet in respect to niyself, or 
 with regard to what I consider the rights and interests of the Clergy, 
 Laity, and Bishop 
 
 In July last, Sir, when I was absent, I was appointed one of a 
 Committee, consisting of three clergy and two laymen, to do what, 
 Sir? To perform a <luty imposed upon us by tliis Diocese, instruct- 
 ing us to carry this Resolution to a Court of Bishops which should be 
 assembled under the Canon of the Episcopal Church, and in a respect- 
 ful manner say to them, that the charges which they were about to 
 try, had been investigated by this Convention with relerence to the 
 presentment; and upon that investigation, fully made by a General 
 Committee and reported to a (-onvention, sanctioned by this Conven- 
 tion ; upon that investigation they found no cause of presentment of 
 the Bishop of N. J upon these charges, i on did not stop there, Sir, 
 and my honorable friend from Amboy was, I think, a member of that 
 Convention. 
 
 Hon. James Parker — I was not. 
 
 Mr. Miller — Were you not appointed ? 
 
 Mr. Parker — Yes, sir, but I did not attend it 
 
 Mr. Miller — The proceedings of that session were the action of 
 Convention, the same as though every member chosen had been pres- 
 ent. I mean to say this: this is a legal Convention in the Church" 
 and our order and proceedings here, bind every true njember of the 
 Church ; and those who are not present are equally bound by it, and 
 they have no right to find fault with it. 
 
 Mr. Parkkr — We 1, I do find fault with it, and I claim the right to. 
 
 Mr. Miller — Now, look at the con.-equences which have flowed 
 from that resolution. There are deep, responsible transactions, affect- 
 ing time and eternity, which never can be taken back. But, Sir, I 
 was appointed as a member of a Committee to perlorm a solemn 
 duty. i\ow, if I understand the honorable gentleman, he says that 
 the manner in which we performed that duty does not meet his appro- 
 bation The Committee presented it to the Court of Bishops. Alo ig 
 
36 
 
 with it, what did we do ? We presented an ar£[ument in writing show- 
 ing reasons why the Bishop ought not to be tried by the Court. Now, 
 we may not have performed that duty according to the opinions or 
 tastes of gentlemen here. But this Committee was thrown upon 
 their own responsibihty. This Committee were to act as they thought 
 proper. Was it my duty to consult the honorable gentlemen from 
 Trenton or Amboy ? 
 
 We were next earnestly to request the Court of Bishops not to 
 proceed any further with those charges, because they had been inves- 
 tigated, and been declared not true, by this Convention. What was 
 the result ? They considered the action of the Diocese of New Jer- 
 sey ; they examined the evidence with reference to those charges, and 
 decided by a solemn vote, that that investigation was an honest one, 
 and the charges without foundation. They decided that. Whose 
 fault was it that all the witnesses were not examined? 
 
 Mk. Gifford — Will the gentleman let me ask him what the ques- 
 tion is ? 
 
 Mr. Miller — I do not know. Sir. [Laughter,'] I am answering, 
 now, some ohjections thrown out here. I wish to state simply to this 
 Convention, that we have done nothing more than carry out the order 
 of this Convention. We presented to the Court of Bishops this evi- 
 dence, the manner in which it was taken, and we asked them, in a 
 solemn and earnest manner, not to proceed any further with regard to 
 these charges. And now, when we come back to this same Conven- 
 tion which instructed us to do this, and accomplish this very result, 
 we say, we did what you told us to do, and it was effectual. And 
 now gentlemen find fault with us for our taking it up to the highest 
 Court in the country. Now, I come to the point. It is said here, 
 that that opinion of the Bishops and of the action of this Diocese 
 ought not to stand, because that investigation, made by the Commit- 
 tee of Investigation, was not a fciir, thorough and an honest one. 
 That is the question raised here to-night. That is the question raised 
 by the gentleman from Trenton — precisely the question raised by the 
 three Bishops — the integrity of the Diocese of New Jersey, and the 
 fairness of that Committee. Sir, I thought it was an unworthy pro- 
 ceeding, on the part of those Bishops, their endeavor to cast reproach 
 on this Committee. But they had no feeling in common with us ; 
 they were strangers, out-siders, and seized upon this plea because 
 they thought it might serve their purpose. They were not working 
 for right ; but as lawyers for their cause. They did all they could to 
 destroy the force of what the Committee had said to the Court ; and 
 after a full argument, (we not being heard in reply,) the House of 
 Bishops, assembled in Burlington, solemnly decided, under the great 
 responsibility of their official oaths, that the investigation b}' the Com- 
 mittee was satisfactory to the Church. And w^hen we come back 
 here and tell you that the Court of Bishops thus decided, gentlemen 
 here say that notwithstanding this decision, we want another investi- 
 gation — we want still a trial. And the honorable gentleman presents 
 a resolution at this stage of the proceedings, in which he asks the 
 Bishop to put the question to this Diocese, requesting him to demand a 
 trial When, where, and how ? I ask the gentleman. How can he 
 get a trial? In a civil court? This Convention ask the Bishop to 
 
37 
 
 demand a trial ? When, and where ; upon what charges ? whose 
 charges ? If any Christian man in this assembly thinks that Bishop 
 Doane is guilty of crime or immorality, let him present him for trial. 
 Let him take the Canon of the Church. He there finds that a Bishop 
 may be presented for trial. Is there any other mode pointed out in 
 the Church, in which he can have a trial? None other. And here I 
 wish to call the attention of this Convention to what I have heard and 
 hear again. The gentleman knows very well that all the proceedings 
 of the Diocese in regard to this matter, have been upon the question 
 of presentment. The Canon declares that a Bishop may be pre- 
 sented by the Convention, or by three Bishops ; and we cannot pro- 
 cure a trial of a Bishop unless it is by a presentment, either through a 
 Diocese or by three Bishops. 
 
 Now, the only question pending is filling up the blank with the 
 names of the new Committee. When we look at the history of this 
 matter, I think the Convention will see, first, that there is a great prin- 
 ciple involved in this matter, and that it is highly probable that the same 
 gentlemen composing the first Committee should be put in charge of this 
 work, because they made a faithful investigation of this case before. 
 
 Secondly, the highest tribunal of the Church have examined that 
 investigation and declared it to be satisfactory. The Presenting 
 Bishops undertook to impeach the candor of that Committee, and as- 
 signed their reasons for believing that they acted with partiality, and 
 their Report was not entitled to credit. There is not a man in this 
 Convention who does not know the contrary, and the House of Bish- 
 ops have so decided. And yet, it has been published to the world that 
 this Committee was not a fair Committee, because some of them had 
 their sons at the College, and some of them had let you have their 
 money to build up the College. Sir, if they had read your heart as we 
 have, they might easily have found that in all those holy ties which 
 bind People, Clergy and Bishop together — they might have found that 
 in twenty years faithful performance of duties, our confidence in you 
 is not so easily destroyed. [SomelJiing not heard.] Shall I admit 
 that because my two sons are entrusted to your care for education, I 
 am not able to judge whether you have committed perjury ? No, Sir. 
 And now I say that without this impeachment of the gentlemen upon 
 that Committee, and this Convention having solemnly decided upon 
 two separate occasions that they were competent, I say that it is our 
 duty, in investigating the other charges according to the directions of 
 the Court of Bishops to which this whole matter was referred — it is 
 our duty, I say, to appoint the same Committee. 
 
 Hon. R. p. TiioMrsoK — Having made a motion to strike out the 
 names of the Committee, it is due to myself to say that I made this 
 motion not from any want of confidence in the gentlemen named, but 
 merely because it was asked of me by one of them, who himself de- 
 sired to be excused from serving again, because other persons, it was 
 believed, would be better. But I am satisfied that if consequences 
 are to flow from it which my friends have predicted, and the Conven- 
 tion is to be influenced by what they have said, I ask leave to with- 
 draw the motion. 
 
 The Bishop — It now stands moved and seconded that the blank be 
 filled with the names of the former Committee. 
 
38 
 
 Mr. Halsted — T understand the Resolution now to be in the shape 
 in which it was originally offered. It includes, therefore, two ques- 
 tions; one is to appoint a Committee, and the other is to include all 
 the persons of the old Committee in the appointment. Now I wish 
 to inform the Convention that one of the members, Mr. VVakefield, 
 has removed out of the State. [Here something was snid, in sub- 
 staU' e, that it was not material, as a clause in the Resolution provides 
 for filling vacancies.'\ Mr. Halsted resumed : Premising, Sir, that I 
 have personally a great respect for the gentlemen composing the 
 Committee, I doubt, however, the expediency of the whole motion, 
 and am opposed to it in tolo. 
 
 It appears to me, that if I was called upon to decide what would be 
 best for the peace of the Church, (1 presume that we are all in favor 
 of the peace of the Church,) as a conscientious man, I should say, 
 if a Committee is to be raised, appoint a Committee who have ex- 
 pressed no opinion upon this subject; who have not become warm by 
 any active participation in the matter ; who have not, by the very fact 
 that they have drawn out a report of the Bishop's innocence, become 
 wedded to that opinion. We all know how very partial we are to 
 our own opinions. It appears to me, therefore, that if the object the 
 Convention have in view is to give satisfaction to the public, they 
 ought to appoint a Committee who have not expressed an opinion on 
 the subject at all. 
 
 The first gentleman Vv'ho spoke, from the House of Prayer, gave as 
 a reason why those gentlemen should be re-appointed, that the victory 
 already achieved would be carried out. Now it really appears to me 
 that that is the strongest reason why they should not be appointed. 
 [A sentence not heard. ] 
 
 Rev. Mr. Southard — The victory I had reference to was a tri- 
 umph of the truth. 
 
 Mr. Halsted — It may be what you consider a victory of the truth, 
 but different persons think differentl}^ as to what is the truth. 
 
 Now, to my mind, the very argument of the gentleman that it is to 
 carry out Xheir victoi'y that the Committee are to do so, shows a state 
 of feeling not consistent with a calm and simple endeavor to elicit 
 truth. 
 
 Mr. Southard — I said that if the same Committee were not ap- 
 pointed, I thought we should lose much of that victory which had 
 already been won — that victory of truth ; and I meant that we should 
 lose it in this way: that by removing those gentlemen, we should re- 
 flect upon the fairness and the fullness of the investigation those gentle- 
 men had made, so that you would deprive us of that victory which we 
 won in the Court, vi'hen the Bishops said, your investigation is satis- 
 factory to us. 
 
 Mr. Halsted — The gentleman assumes here that the three Bish- 
 ops have impeached the character of that Committee, which is not the 
 case ; on the contrary, they expressly accorded to them all the high 
 character which the Convention of this Diocese claim for them ; and 
 therefore, when the gentleman assumes that the character of those 
 gentlemen has been impeached, he goes beyond the mark. Now, I 
 do say, and I submit it to every person ; I ask, would the report of a 
 Committee, constituted as that Committee was, have the same effect 
 
39 
 
 upon the public mind as the report of gentlemen totally unconnected 
 with the Bishop, his College, or his debts i Would it have ? I submit, 
 without the least imoutation against the honor of those gentlemen, 
 that it could not. I say, then, that it is due to the Bishop, and due to 
 the Church, that we should have a Committee who have not expressed 
 an opinion upon this subject ; and therefore I say it is for the good of 
 the Church. If they want a Committee to make an investigation, let 
 it be made by men who have not committed themselves by any pre- 
 conceived opinion upon the subject. 
 
 Now, Sir, as to the second resolution. That resolution is that this 
 Committee shall have power to appoint or to fill vacancies. I would 
 ask, in what capacity is this Committee of Inquirj' to act ? Is it to act 
 in a judicial or ministerial capacity? Is it to exercise any judgment 
 whether those charges which have been presented have been proved 
 or not ? Am I to understand that the Committee of Inquiry are to 
 act judicially? [TAe Reporter missed a few words.'j 
 
 It is to investigate the charges and make up their opinion as to 
 their truth, and to report to this Convention their decision. Now, if 
 this Committee is a Judicial Committee, or to exercise in some meas 
 ure judicial powers, to exercise their judgment upon matters brought 
 before them, the motion to empower them to fill vacancies is illegal. 
 It is a matter well understood by lawyers ; ministerial authority may 
 be delegated, but judicial authority cannot. Did ever a person hear 
 that when a .Judge was chosen, that Judge could delegate his powers 
 to anybody else ? No, never. Then 1 submit that tliis Convention 
 have no authority whatever to empower this Committee to appoint 
 any person to fill nny vacancy. If this Committee is to be a Commit- 
 tee to act judicially, they may have confidence in certain gentlemen 
 whom they ma}' choose to nominate, while others might have no con- 
 fidf^nce in persons that this Committee might nominate. I know that 
 it is a very common thing in our jjolitical moves, where we appoint 
 some active men to do political work, to leave them to appoint others. 
 [A sentence lostJ] 
 
 I submit, therefore, that this resolution ought not to pass, for it is 
 wholly illegal and improper. Now, Sir, my learned friend from M-^r- 
 ristown, the honorable Senator, has submitted some views upon this 
 subject which I cannot assent to. In the first place, he laid down the 
 position that every person belonging to this Convention was necessa- 
 rily bound l)y the acts of the Convention, and have no right to find 
 fault with them He said, suppose that in the absence of one of the 
 members of a Legislative body a law should be passed, he is bound by 
 it. Now, I submit to my honorable friend that that principle is not the 
 one in question. 
 
 Suppose the Legislature undertook to pass a law which is in direct 
 opposition to the Constitution ; would he be responsilile for it I If 40 
 Bishops declare a matter constitutional, if I do not believe it constitu- 
 tional I have the right, as a man, to say so. Every man is free to 
 judge for himself, according to the dictates of his reason, until there 
 has been a judicial decision upon the "point. 
 
 I believe the day will como when a majority of the Bishops in this 
 country will so decide it. But, as it now remains here, we have a 
 right to form our opinions ; we are at liberty, if we find occasion, to 
 
. 40 
 
 differ. I only say, then, to my friend from Morristown, I take a dif- 
 ferent view. We are not bound. We have a perfect right to express 
 our dissent, not only from the adoption of the Report of the Commit- 
 tee, but from any action founded upon that Report. [The closing 
 sentence not heard.'] 
 
 Now, the reverend gentleman in his argument undertook to saj 
 that the four charges which have been referred to this Convention by 
 the Court of Bishops, were known to the three Bishops before thej 
 made the original presentment, or were known to the persons who pre- 
 ferred the accusations. I do not know what authority the gentleman 
 had to make that assertion. I know that some of those matters were 
 brought to the attention of the three Bishops ; but they declined to 
 make charges upon them, because they had not been able to see the 
 individual witnesses, and were not willing to adopt any statement, un- 
 less they could find reliable testimony. If they knew them all, it shows 
 that they did not put them in, because such evidence could not be ob- 
 tained then as they could rely upon as sufficient. 
 
 The BisHor — They say expressly that two were left out by acci- 
 dent; I say they were designedly left out 
 
 Mr. Halsted — Well, it only makes the case stronger then. If 
 these are new charges they ought to be examined by a new Commit- 
 tee, and not by those who have already decided that the Bishop is in- 
 nocent. So far as any result is to be attained, I would quite as lief 
 have those gentlemen as any others. It is not because I have any 
 personal objection ; nay, the contrary. But if you want a report 
 which will have no weight upon the public mind, appoint these very 
 men, and rest on their decision. 
 
 I do not, I cannot believe, that it is proper that gentlemen who stand 
 in the relation that these gentlemen do towards the Bishop, shonid act 
 in this case. But I have another remark to make. Several of the 
 gentlemen (particularly the gentleman from Morristown,) have stated 
 that the objection to this report was that it was not a fair report, made 
 by independent men. One of the objections, and the main one, is, 
 that it was not afidl report. The Resolution or the Preamble before 
 the Convention has undertaken to say that this Committee have made 
 a full and honest inquiry into the allegations. Now, I deny it ; I say 
 that Committee did not make a full investigation. But yet it has been 
 declared and reiterated over and over again, that that Committee 
 made a full examination of all the charges. [A few tcords not heard.] 
 
 Now, I say, that this Report has been invoked over and over again 
 as a full inquiry. Now, I refer to the Report to show that this Com- 
 mittee said that it was not a full examination. On page 26 it says : — 
 [The sfeaker here cited some expressions in the Report which could 
 not be noted.] 
 
 Now, I find fault with the Convention for having passed a Resolu- 
 tion asserting that that Committee did make a full investigation. Now 
 here, in their Report, the Committee say very frankly and candidly, 
 that they could make no full investigation ; and yet it is reiterated on 
 this floor, over and over again, that they did. 
 
 I want the truth to be heard, and their Report stated just exactly 
 as the Committee stated it. Look at the Report, and you will find 
 several instances where the Committee gave their reasons why they 
 
41 
 
 could not make a full examination. When we are told that we ought 
 to be satisfied — that there has been a full and satisfectory inquiry, we 
 reply, Why, gentlemen, there could have been no full inquiry, and here 
 is the evidence. We point to the fact that there were 38 witnesses, 
 whose names were furnished to the Committee, and of these 38, but 5 
 were examined ; and is this to be called a full examination ? 
 
 Mr. Ryall — I think we examined 27 or 28 witnesses. 
 
 Mr. Halsted — But they were not, at least only 5 of them, those 
 on whom the presentment depended. They were witnesses who, as 
 is shown by their testimony, knew nothing about the matters charged. 
 They testified that they did not know. Now I repeat it, that there 
 we'-e more than 30 important witnesses who were not examined ; and 
 yet we are to be told that this was a full investigation. 
 
 Mr. Ryall — All the witnesses named by you were subpenaed, but 
 I don't remember now how many of them appeared. 
 
 Mr. Halsted — There were only 5 out of the \vhole 38 ; and the 
 reason why the persons who were subpenaed did not appear before 
 that Committee exists now : That that Committee was not invested 
 with judicial authority ; and these witnesses still hold themselves in 
 readiness, as they have at all times, to go before the Court of Bishops 
 and give their testimony. 
 
 I say, therefore, if you want a really full investigation of these char- 
 ges, a different policy must be adopted. And I submit, if there is ta 
 be a Committee appointed, that, in the first place, the whole of the 
 Conamittee ought to be directly appointed by the Convention, and not 
 leave to a majority of the Committee to supply vacancies : and sec- 
 ondly, that the Committee ought to be composed of persons in no way 
 connected with the Bishop or his institutions : and in the third place, 
 that that Committee should be composed of a majority o( those who 
 are for the Bishop, and a minority of those against him. By this 
 means we shall be more likely to get at the truth, and have a fair in- 
 vestigation of the charges. 
 
 Mr. Courtland Parker — I will not detain the Convention, Mr. 
 President, long ; for it seems to me that a great deal has been said 
 and done through the day very irrelevant and unnecessary. A large 
 amount of time has been consumed by reading the report, and with 
 various honest and earnest opinions on the part of the Committee 
 who made that Fieport. As to the ability, the good spirit and excel- 
 lence with which they have done their duty — in this matter they may 
 be perfectly right, but, it seems to me, that we have very little to do 
 with it here ; and it seems to me too, that in discussing the conduct of 
 the gentlemen composing the investigating Committee, there is little 
 profit. For my own part, I am free to say, that I have no charge, 
 whatever, to bring against these gentlemen ; that while there may be 
 fears that the minute interest they have in defending the Bishop would 
 at law because of challenge — the doctrine of the law being upon that 
 point, that the minutest shade of interest will exclude a party from act- 
 ing as judge — yet, that, with such men as these, their being trustees,, 
 patrons and creditors, are but trifles, lighter than air, and not to be re- 
 garded by us for one moment. Thes6 gentlemen will do as well for 
 the purposes required of them as any other gentlemen. I have na 
 doubt that they brought to their task a spirit of investigation suf- 
 
42 
 
 ficient for all purposes desired by this Convention, and I suppose that 
 there can be no question that they did what was required of them, 
 honestly, impartially and fairly. 
 
 But, Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of placing before this 
 Convention a proposition as an amendment of those which -are now 
 before them. I understand, that, the resolutions offered by the gen- 
 tleman beside me (Mr. Rutherfurd) are not to be submitted. As to 
 those resolutions, I am free to say that the proposition embodied by 
 them is one which had struck my own mind previously, and 1 had not 
 dreamed that it was in anywise objectionable as out of order. 
 
 The matter has been left with this Convention by the express request 
 of the Bishop. He has placed it before us by his first address at the 
 first Convention, and his second address here. I wish to avow that I 
 am in favor still, and as much as ever, of this matter being regularly 
 tried. I speak more freely upon this matter, because at last, after as- 
 persions from gentlemen who should have been the last to impugn my 
 motives, I believe, and am thankful so to believe, that in the mind of 
 the man who is most concerned in this matter I stand clear of any in- 
 sincerity, any hostility to him, and am thought only to exercise an 
 honest difference of opinion. I am, at last, glad to believe that, with 
 the same ideas I had before, with the same conviction, that a trial was 
 the best thing for the Bishop, the Church and the world ; the best 
 thing for that world which you, Sir, and such as you, are desiring to 
 correct. I shall not be charged with insincerity when I say, that 
 while I believe this, I believe the Bishop innocent of the charges, and 
 for that reason I do most earnestly yet desire that this Convention, 
 even now, should retrace its steps. 
 
 I say. Sir, that it is, in my judgment, now the duty of this Conven- 
 tion to retrace their steps, and to counsel a resort to a canonical tiial; and 
 I submit, Mr. President, with that view, this Resolution, as an amend- 
 ment, or in lieu of the one that has been placed before you, believing 
 that it will meet tlie case, and at the same time be more acceptable 
 than the one proposed before by the gentleman from Jersey City. 
 
 Mr. Parker then offered the following; 
 
 Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention, the fair fame of 
 the Bishop cannot be effectually rescued from the accusations against 
 it, by any ex parte inquiry, however thorough, nor without a canonical 
 trial 
 
 The Bishop — This is worse than the other. I'll put no such res- 
 olutions. Pm a Bishop — Pm Bishop of this Diocese — Ptn Bishop of 
 this Diocese in this Convention, and PIl stand this no longer I have 
 been before the Court of Bishops. I took the course of that Court; 
 and — I am here. But I will not put a resolution like this. What 
 child'- play! After all that has passed, I put a resolution retracting 
 the whole course adopted ; calling upon this Convention to say, that 
 in their opinion, my fair fame needs a trial ? This, after this Conven- 
 tion has resolved that a trial was unnecssary — have sent their Com- 
 mittee to prevent it — have actually succeeded in preventing it? Pll 
 do nothing so utterly absurd. 
 
 I disclaim all idea of distrust as to the motives of the mover, and of 
 the sincerity of the gentleman ; but his resolution is, in effect, an un- 
 
43 
 
 conditional censure. It is worse than that. It's an absurdity — a 
 self stultification. 
 
 I have heard much from a venerable gentleman herCj about the 
 Bishop's character being destroyed, and a trial being necessary to re- 
 deem it; and nothing but his gray hairs prevented me from stopping 
 him. My character destroyed ? and the public confidence in my in- 
 tegrity impaii'ed ? I deny that. I stand in the midst of a Diocese, I 
 can very nearly say, united to a man. I stand in the midst of a Dio- 
 cese, in which there is a tide of sentiment in my favor, which is over- 
 whelming. For the last three months I have received tokens of their 
 kindness, afl'ection, and honor — evidence not to be mistaken, that I 
 am welcome to tlieir hearts and homes, more than ever before. The 
 time has come to stop these resolutions, saying that the fair fame of 
 the Bishop demands a trial. I'll hear no more about officers of the 
 army and navy, and what they do. I am an officer myself — of 
 Christ's army — of the Church militant here on earth ; and know and 
 feel what I ought to do. This mode of personal discussion and per- 
 sonal reflection here — I'll put up with it no longer. I challenge de- 
 nial of any thing that I have said. I challenge any man to put his 
 finger upon the smallest fraction of error in my estimate of my posi- 
 tion, and of what my own fair fame demands. I defy the proofs to 
 the contrary. I deny that there is any want of confidence in me. If 
 I had not in my possession piles of letters,, from men in every part of 
 the United States, and from multitudes beyond the limits of this coun- 
 try, v> hose names are virtue and honor, expressing their sympathy and 
 confidence, I might think otherwise. [TAe Bishops concluding re- 
 mark here, and something said by Mr. Halsted in reply to it, icere not 
 un derstood by the Reporter ] 
 
 Mr. C. Parker — If I were disposed to say what many men in the 
 same situation would, it would be, Sir, that you seemed to think you 
 were consecrated Bishop, and made President of this Convention, for 
 the purpose of having us do and say just what you reg«rd as right, and 
 nothing else. 1 have moved this resolution, not with the expectation 
 of its being carried, but with the simple and solitary object of having 
 a vote taken which should fairly and fully express the sentiments of 
 myself and of those who think with me in the Diocese. But it seems, 
 Mr. President, that though it be right and proper in this Convention 
 to resolve that this Committee shall go for the purpose of submitting 
 to the Court of Bishops, assembled under the Canon, whether it be 
 just or right, or for the peace of God's Church, to go on with the trial 
 — that it is not right or proper, and by no means to be permitted — 
 that this i 'onvention sh;dl entertain a resolution to the contrary. That 
 seems to be the conclu ion of the whole matter. This is the real po- 
 sition of the Bishop, and of the majority of this Convention. 
 
 Judge Ogden — I would ask the gentleman who has just taken his 
 seat, How, at this time, can the trial of the Bishop go on? Where 
 is the Court which is to try him ? 
 
 In the first place, it is said by the three Bishops, that the}' are pre- 
 pared to prove, fully and conclusively to establish their charges. But the 
 House of Bishops, rightly regarding the rights of the Diocese, have 
 decided that this Convention is the proper body, and that the Diocese 
 should settle it. They have allotted to this Convention which has de- 
 
44 
 
 cided upon the first charges, that this Convention now assembled in 
 its special session, should investigate the new charges. That this may 
 be done, it is proposed that a Committee should now be appointed to 
 take charge of this business ; and it is proposed to appoint the old 
 Committee, which I am in favor of. But no matter who they are, this 
 Committee.' You appoint A., B. and C, and append to their appoint- 
 ment authority to fill up any vacancy, in order to have a quorum. 
 
 But, the witnesses, they say, will not go before this Committee to 
 testify ; and how is this Committee to investigate ? Is that the way 
 to bring charges against the Head of a Diocese? They sa}' it is not 
 invested with competent authoiity to try charges, this Convention. 
 Is it not the same Convention which tried the charges before ? And 
 has not the House of Bishops decided that the action ot this Conven- 
 tion was sufficient ? 
 
 The gentleman from Trenton says he cannot go before this Com- 
 mittee, where he was summoned formerly, because the charges had 
 been presented by those Bishops, and that the course taken by the 
 Convention in appointing the Committee was contrary to the Canons 
 and Constitution of the Church. But he is now told that the House 
 of Bishops has decided that it was right. And then he changes his 
 grammar, and says that we ought to leave off the old Committee and 
 appoint a new set of men who will make an impartial investigation. 
 What becomes of the constitutional question in his mind ? It is not 
 deniable — it is perfectly plain — that this proposed investigation of the 
 charges by this Convention, in order that they should be settled, is 
 right and proper, and that it is the only true course to be pursued. 
 \_lSeveral sentences of the speaker here could not be understood.^ 
 
 In appointing this Committee, I never will yield, tliat these gentle- 
 men who have done their duty so well, shall be left off". [There were 
 several further remarks, which the Reporter was unable to note-^ 
 
 Hon. James Parker — The gentleman last up has been arguing a 
 question which was not before us ; and for myself, I have no objection 
 to the gentlemen composing the old Committee being again entrusted 
 with this business. All I said before was, that they had not examined 
 the principal witnesses. It was their misfortune, not their fault ; and 
 if they are to act again, they ought to endeavor to examine the wit- 
 nesses against, as well as those for the Bishop. 
 
 But, Sir, I do not rise for that purpose. I rise, Sir, in behalf of 
 those whom I represent, to protest against the tyrannical conduct of 
 the Bishop. The Bishop has not the authority to stop debate ; I pro- 
 test against his assumption of it. You have destroyed the freedom 
 of debate. Sir. You refused to put a question offered by the gentle- 
 man before me — interrupted him in his remarks — and nothing. Sir, 
 but my gray hairs, it seems, excused me from like interruption. ^ ou 
 may consider me, for that matter, as young as you please. Anybody 
 that came in and saw the Bishop speaking, would have thought him 
 excited by something very uncommon. I protest against this attempt 
 to arrest debate. 
 
 I have said it before, and I say it again, that the Convention has 
 taken the wrong course to settle this question ; and the more you 
 evade the canonical trial, the more you admit that there is something 
 wrong which you are ashamed to show, and afraid to have heard. I 
 
45 
 
 do protest against this authority which the Bishop assumes^ of stop- 
 ping debate. 
 
 Mr, Halsted — Now, I have an amendment to move ; and my 
 amendment is, that the Committee to be appointed are to examine all 
 charges against the Bishop, and any additional ones that may be made. 
 I have a charge, and it is one which the three Bishops refused to adopt ; 
 and I appeal to every man in this house if the charge is not correct. 
 The charge is this ? His conduct, while presiding over the Convention 
 in this Diocese, has been discourteous, overbearing and tj'rannical — 
 wholly destitute of that propriety which should belong to a christian 
 Bishop. I want to present that charge. For when resolutions have 
 been respectfully offered to this Convention, that he should take upon 
 himself to say, he will not put them — it ought not to be tolerated by 
 the Church. 
 
 A motion to adjourn was here put and defeated. 
 
 Amid much confusion, and cries of "question" and "order" all 
 over the house, Rev. Mr. Sherman took the floor, but could not pro- 
 ceed on account of the noise. 
 
 Mr. James Parker — I move. Sir, that the Bishop is out of order. 
 You are as disorderly a man as any body in this Convention. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Patersox — I would ask the President if there is no way 
 to have order. 
 
 Mr. Rutherfurd — No, Mr. Paterson ; they wish to press the gag- 
 law in a christian Convention. [Confusion, and cries of "order" and 
 "question." 
 
 Rev. Mr. Sherma^t — I have had the floor now some time ; but I 
 don't see much chance for the privilege which 1 supposed attached to 
 it. However, I'm pretty much disposed to keep good-natured, and hold 
 on, and when the noise is over, I shall proceed. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Dunn — You can't be heard Sir ; you can't be heard. 
 
 Mr. Sherman — Then FU speak louder. Mr. President ! — I have 
 the floor. And now I insist upon the President of this Convention 
 maintaining order, while I proceed. [After a brief pause, quiet being 
 restored, Mr. Sherman resumed.^ 
 
 The matter now before the house, as I understand it, is two-fold — 
 the appointment of a Committee : and a reference to that Committee 
 of certain matters — matters, which I maintain and urge, are not prop- 
 erly before this Convention. Let me be understood in this relation. 
 The charges or specifications mentioned in the proposition are not, as 
 I apprehend, fairly before this body for any present action. No one 
 has preferred these charges here, and nobody stands pledged to us to 
 substantiate them. They are the property of those who framed them, 
 not ours. They do not belong to us, as subject matter at all. As a 
 Convention we do not know them — they are altogether foreign and 
 extraneous. If they are within the knowledge of individual mem- 
 bers, they are so not from any formal introduction of them here, but 
 solely from the fact that they have been seen outside. I submit, there- 
 fore, and I press the point, that the}' are subject matter which does 
 not belong to this Convention at all. That such or similar specific 
 charges have been made before a certain other body, by three of the 
 Bishops, I make no question ; but no party, as I can learn, has pre- 
 ferred these accusations here. They are not legitimately before us. 
 
46 
 
 Their reference, therefore, to a Committee, for investigation, or any 
 other action taken upon them here, in the present posture of the case, 
 is not legitimate ; and I again submit, can hardly be considered as 
 legal, or right, or proper. 
 
 However, waiving that, I go on now to meet the question as it 
 stands proposed in the Resolution entered, and shall rest upon other 
 and general grounds the remarks I have to make. 
 
 I am entirely opposed to a reference of these, or of any other similar 
 matters, to the Committee of Investigation which sat formerly upon 
 the presentment made by the three Bishops, or to any other Commit- 
 tee constituted as that was, for these two reasons : First, Because I 
 do not understand what object is contemplated by the reference. 
 
 It is not avowed by the mover, nor even hinted in the premises that 
 it is with intention to the question of presenting or not presenting 
 under the Canon of the General Convention ; and I know not by 
 what right this Convention can go into inquisition upon points touch- 
 ing the reputation and character of any individual in its membership, 
 from the Bishop down to the humblest Presbyter or Deacon, except 
 in direct and manifest connection with the single question of present- 
 ment. That question has not been raised nor avowed relatively to 
 the investigation proposed. What the intention may be I venture 
 not to guess. Judging from the past, I might fairly infer that it points 
 to any thing but that. But I take the proposition in th& shape in 
 which it comes to me, and 1 assume ihis, as the first ground of my 
 objection — the absence of any apparent object, as contemplated or in- 
 tended to be compassed by this proposed investigation. There are 
 those, perhaps, who have been admitted behind the scenes in this bu- 
 siness, who can tell us what the purpose of this action is. For one, 
 I confess myself in the dark. And I urge it, as a pertinent inquiry at 
 this stage, which ought to be somehow settled before proceeding fur- 
 ther — 1 ask in all fairness — What is the real object in instituting this 
 investigation of the charges alluded to ? Is it with rt- ference to the 
 simple question of presentment ? or for what ? We need, some of us 
 at least, to be enlightened upon this point. It is an important feature 
 of the case, and I wonder it hps not been remarked upon before. 
 
 Rev. Mn. Southard — I would inform the gentleman, that the 
 Committee will recommend a presentment of the Bishop, if they find 
 occasion for it in investigating the charges. If they find them true, 
 they intend to so report to the Convention, and the Convention can 
 then present, if they choose. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Sherman — I am glad to be so informed, and from such 
 a quarter. Whether the Committee will Jind occasion is another point. 
 What has been said b/ the gentleman from Newark is by authority, 
 I suppose ; and with this assurance I rest my first objection, glad that 
 this issue which was evaded when I pressed it upon this gentleman at 
 the Convention in May, has at length been met. I hope, if there be 
 occasion for presentment in this account, the Committee who failed, 
 if they sought it, in the former reference, may be more fortunate in 
 discovering it 
 
 But I object to the proposed investigation on other grounds. I ob- 
 ject to it, in the second place, because I am well satisfied that the 
 action of any Committee of this Convention, not only in regard to 
 
47 
 
 those specifications which are called "new" but in regard to any and 
 all specifications charged by the three Bisho| s in their presentment — 
 I ara fully persuaded that the investigation of a Committee, acting as 
 they must, will result in nothing. And as evidence, I point to what 
 they have done already. They have certainly done nothing — except 
 to interpose what has proved a bar in the way of a certain course 
 which had been entered on under the Canon, to bring this whole bu- 
 siness to a final issue. They did worse than nothing. 'I hey fur- 
 nished to another Committee the materials which have been applied 
 to block the judicial progress of the case, and throw it back upon us. 
 [Cries of " order" — a sentence not heard-l 
 
 In one respect I must be allowed to differ from some with whom 
 upon the main issue I agree. I would not seek to cast undue reflec- 
 tions upon the Committee as such, nor upon any of its members. 
 They traversed, as far as they were able, the ground which was as- 
 signed them. They were, as 1 am fain to believe, honest, conscien- 
 tious, and sincere in what they undertook to do. Under the peculiar 
 circumstances which fettered and embarrassed their proceedings, they 
 did perhaps the best that such a Committee could. And 1 do believe 
 that the gentlemen who composed that Committee which served on the 
 previous occasion, would serve as effectively in this behalf as any 
 others we might choose to appoint. ISut after all, what can they do ? 
 Did they effect any thing for good in the former case ? To what did 
 their whole investigation then amount? After expending a large share 
 of time and labor in that connection, they were only enabled, alter a 
 professed and intended traversing of the entire ground, they were only 
 able to arrive at a partial and imperfect knowledge of the matters 
 charged and referred to them. Their examination was, as from the 
 nature of things it must be, and as from the nature of the case it was, 
 ex parte. As evidence that a further action by the Committee as con- 
 templated in the present movement, will prove of no avail toward a 
 settlement of the business, I refer you to the former i.ction upon the 
 case, and would fix attention upon the main fact of what was the re- 
 sult of ail their labors. They report to us — what? That in fulfil- 
 ment of their appointment they have investigate^ all the matters re- 
 ferred to them by the Convention. And then they go on to tell us, 
 in summing up their Report, not only that they had not found the al- 
 leged matters true, but they distincly tell us further, that they have 
 "disproved" all the charges. This is the language of their Report: 
 all the charges have been " disproved." 
 
 Now, notwithstanding that clear declaration, and as showing that 
 we may not look for conclusive results from the action of this Com- 
 mittee, nor repose full confidence in the conclusions they may reach, 
 I stand here in my place, as a member of this Convention and a Pres- 
 byter of this Diocese, and say, upon my own responsibility, in the face 
 of any and every declaration to the contrary, that I know the truth — 
 yes, 1 know the truth of several counts in that indictment, which the 
 Committee aver in their Report, have been "disproved." 1 say it, not 
 as a matter of opinion, but of fact; I k7iow it— from testimon unmis- 
 takeable, which has come into my apprehension through the avenues 
 of my bodily sense. [A few sentences not heard'\ 
 
 Now, nothing of good is to come from the action of this Committee 
 
48 
 
 to be appointed. Thev may enter with all honesty and sincerity of 
 purpose upon the task assigned them under the Resolution, should we 
 pass it. They may use their best efforts in the business, and ply all 
 the available sources of probable information, and 3'et the whole of 
 their labor may be in vain, and their strength be spent for naught. It 
 proved so in the former case, and no real good has grown out of their 
 reported investigation. Things still continue as they were. The adop- 
 tion of their Report by the Convention has not disposed of the pre- 
 sentment; for the Convention was incompetent — it had no judicial 
 power. The whole action thus far is a signal failure. It has served 
 to settle nothing. It has served to settle no single thing as charged 
 in the presentment, nor to set it aside. No jot or tittle of the subject 
 matter charged in that indictment has passed away or failed from the 
 account. It remains there, and hangs over the accused Bishop of 
 this Diocese, like a sword by a hair ; and it will still hang there, until 
 one of two issues shall have been reached — either a withdrawal of 
 that presentment by the three Bishops who have made it, as provided 
 by Canon, or a trial upon its merits by the Court charged with its 
 final adjudication. Neither of these has taken place, and the end is 
 not yet. And here we are, in a position any thing but desirable. And 
 I stand here and say, that the issue which has been brought in by the 
 intervention of the Committee whose Report is upon the table, has 
 served to introduce a state of things most sadly to be deplored. I re- 
 gret that issue of this business in all its relations, and on every ac- 
 count. 
 
 It is to be deplored, on account of its relations to the accused. It 
 leaves him with grave charges hanging over his head, several of which 
 are known to be true. 
 
 I deplore it, on account of the Church, and especially on account 
 of its bearings upon the Church in this Diocese. 
 
 And I deplore it, most of all, because it fails, and must fail, to re- 
 store that confidence, and peace and harmony, which all should de- 
 sire. 
 
 After all that has been done by by our Committees, and all that 
 has been undertaken elsewhere, the whole subject reverts to us an 
 open question, and every one is at liberty to form and entertain his 
 own opinion. One sentiment obtains here, and another there; and in 
 every respect the position we are in is most unfortunate. 
 
 How, then, are we to escape from the difliiculty? That is the 
 question now. Can any further action ou our part — can any further 
 reference to a Committee, or any action taken on their part, or pro- 
 posed by them, better our position and relieve the case ? I think not. 
 Judging from what has been, I utterly distrust any and all action of 
 that sort. It has only operated to make bad worse, with every step 
 in its progress ; and I am therefore opposed to the entire scope of the 
 Resolution. I object to the appointment of this Committee, because 
 I see no good that will come from its action. If there were any more 
 probable result for good to come of it, any thing to be really gained, 
 I would waive my objections at once, and readily accede to that which 
 seems to be the prevalent sentiment in the Convention — that the 
 charges alluded to (but not properly before us, for I would still urge 
 that,) should be referred to the Committee ; and that the whole matter 
 
49 
 
 should be adjudicated by the subsequent decision upon it of this 
 Convention. But no such issue as that can settle the business, or be 
 received as satisfactory ; because the decision of a Convention is 
 without judicial force, and restricted in this relation to the bare ques- 
 tion of presentment. Could it set the impress of final settlement upon 
 charges, its action would suffice, and we would submit. But it can- 
 not — it is powerless in this respect. 
 
 I can see no ultimate good, as I said before, that is to come from 
 our further pursuit of already presented charges, or from their refer- 
 ence to a Committee. No real benefit can reasonably be expected to 
 accrue from it. As in the former case, I verily believe the Committee 
 were intent upon reaching the whole truth in regard of the allega- 
 tions submitted to them, and sought all available information in the 
 premises, or at least were ready to receive it, so I am confident in 
 my belief, that to the extent of their ability, they would undertake an 
 impartial investigation of these additional charges, if referred to 
 them. I make no question of their integrity of motive, nor of their 
 honesty of purpose in this behalf. But after all, their lack of knowl- 
 edge as to the sources of information whence the charges made by 
 others had been drawn ; their neglect to go forth from the seclusion 
 of their Committee room, in Burlington, to seek and search that they 
 might find; the impediments which existed in several instances, and 
 which were interposed in others, as bars upon their desired examina- 
 tion of important matters charged ; and the peculiar circumstances in 
 which they were placed, embarrassing throughout to their free pro- 
 ceeding ; these and other causes, combined with the native difficulties 
 of the whole business to render a strictly full investigation an almost 
 impossibility. Their own manifest of the case, the voluminous Re- 
 port of tha Committee, shows most clearly that the examination was 
 ex parte. A mere fraction of the evidence upon which the present- 
 ment rests, was all that the Committee reached. As an investigation, 
 it was at the best partial and imperfect, and has served to settle no- 
 thing. 
 
 Such was the result from their former action. And I see no reason 
 in the nature of things nor in any increased facilities for a thorough 
 and full investigation of the matters now proposed, — I cannot see 
 that the action of a Committee will be more successful now, than in 
 the previous case. Is there, I ask, any more of likelihood that these 
 charges will be conclusively disposed of? This we ought to well 
 consider. \_A few words not heard.'\ 
 
 Without speaking by authority, I conceive that I have a right to 
 venture an opinion, that those who have already moved in this matter 
 as presenters, have so fortified their position, and so secured to them- 
 selves the testimony upon which they rely, that it may remain shut 
 up to their use. Except in one of them, (the last, I think it is,) the 
 specifications in question contain no indications of the testimony. 
 The Committee may search for it, but at the same time, I have 
 reason to believe that their quest will be in vain. 
 
 And then the Report — that they have examined the matters, and 
 have found them all "disproved" — a repetition of what they told us 
 once before. 
 
 One word upon this matter of "disproval,^' and I will detain the 
 house no longer. What are we to understand by "disproving" cer- 
 tain charges ? The Committee in their Report to the adjourned Con- 
 
50 
 
 vention in June, speak definitelj; and say, "that none of the charges 
 against the Bishop have been sustained." So far, so well. But they 
 go on to say, "that on the contrary, they have been disproved, and 
 are not true." What can they mean by such singular use of lan- 
 guage ? To disprove an allegation, I take to be a little different from 
 the issue in point of fact that it remains not proven. There is a 
 manifest distinction, and an important difference. If the Committee 
 had simply said, that after a diligent and careful examination, (and 
 they might as well have written "partial" — for such, by their ovv^n 
 showing, it was, from necesslt}^, though not of choice,) if the}' had 
 simply said, they could arrive at no knowledge as to the truth of the 
 matters charged, and stopped there, they would have spoken more to 
 the point, and kept nearer to the line of accuracy. But they have 
 compounded their account, and declare in their Report, which has 
 gone upon the record as adopted here, that all those previous charges 
 submitted to their investigation "have been disproved, and are not 
 true." To prevent a second edition of their error, I repeat in this 
 connection, that there are several grave matters charged in that in- 
 dictment, (charges with which my name in no wa}' stands connected,) 
 which I know are not disproved, but are still literally and strictly 
 true. 
 
 Judge Ogdex — That makes three times you've said it. 
 
 Mr. Sherman — And I hope I am understood. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Southard — I desire that the principles, asserted by this 
 Convention, should be maintained ; and, so far as it is in my power, 
 I would urge the course adopted, as the rule of action in this question 
 before them — the rule of duty, before them. In the former action, it 
 was regarded as an insidl to the Bishops, that the Diocese had the 
 exclusive right to act first upon the charges, and decide the question 
 of presentment. It was carried up to an assemjjled Court; and that 
 Court decided that we had done right. 
 
 We are now called on, not merely by our sense of duty, but by a 
 recommendation of the Court of Bishops, to do this thing. And 
 what is it but an insult and contempt, to evade it ? We are hound to 
 do what has been directed by this supreme authority. And yet, we 
 are told, that, when the very Court, the authority to which this refer- 
 emce has been made, have asked of New Jersey, and directed this 
 Convention to investigate these charges — we are told that, if a Com- 
 mittee is appointed, the witnesses, who profess to know so much, but 
 will be sure not to tell it, will not appear. Yes ; we are told, here, 
 that these witnesses icill not aj)pear. 
 
 What does it mean ? Does it mean that any man here, will refuse 
 to tell what he knows, when tlie very authority which they profess to 
 reverence, says, " tell it V Sir, I would like to see the man, who will 
 dare, when he has accused his Bishop, and affirms that he has knowl- 
 edge, I would like to see the man, who dares to refuse his testimony. 
 Let him take that position ; and he shall abide by it, 
 
 Mr. Archer Gifford — I wish to speak directly to the point. I 
 feel it my duty to submit to the decision (if it may be so termed) of 
 the House of Bishops, as one of the constituted authorities of the 
 Church. I do so as a lover of good order and the peace of society. 
 And yet, while, in the present instance, I submit to this authority, or 
 this exercise of it, I feel much as Galileo did, when compelled to ac- 
 cuse himself, on his knees, of heresy, because he had advocated the 
 
51 
 
 Copernican system of the planets revolving around the sun ; and who- 
 could not help exclaiming, when he arose, " and yet it does move !" 
 
 I cannot be satisfied that the Committee have kept within their 
 province, when they attempt to join in their Report of the proceed- 
 ings of the House of Bishops, the recommendation of that body to 
 this Convention, to execute a certain pledge that they will proceed in 
 the investigation of the new charges that have been made, whether 
 they involve criminality or misbehaviour. This I do not stop to con- 
 sider. I have never r»^ad these charges ; and I do not profess to 
 know about them. I have never acted with any party. [A member 
 here interrupted the speaker, icith an allusion which teas unintelligible 
 to the reporter.^ Some years ago, I am ready to admit, I was one of 
 a number of gentlemen who consulted together in private as to 
 whether it was not demanded by the position of things, that our 
 Bishop should be presented. I did not then think it advisable, and I 
 so expressed my opinion. As there is no pledge of secresy which 
 binds me in regard to what took place at that meeting, I might say 
 something further respecting this, but I do not think it now necessary 
 nor altogether in order. What I would say is this: I do not wish to 
 be considered as acting with any party. I stand upon my own indi- 
 viduality in this matter, and look onl}' upon what I consider to be 
 the correct mode of proceeding, and without any reference to the 
 guilt or innocence of the Bishop. The Committee have embodied a 
 matter in their Report, which the}' were not charged with by the Con- 
 vention ; and however I maj' feel bound to accept the Report of the 
 Committee, I cannot agree to accept it with that part included which 
 relates to the pledge further to investigate. Neither can I believe 
 that the House of Bishops have been constituted with any power to 
 recommend to this Convention such a course. Their business was 
 and is to try. This Convention can only present. These last 
 charges are before the House of Bishops on a presentment made by 
 three of the Bishops, according to the Canon. And what power can 
 they have, to recommend to us, to do what it is their peculiar duty to 
 perform, as directed by the Canon ? 
 
 As to the appointment of the same Committee, there would ap- 
 pear to be some indelicacy, in committing another and distinct set of 
 charges to them for investigation ; especially if they are to proceed 
 as they have done with the first charges. They have acted the part 
 of a jury to try ; and, (to use their own language,) "found a ver- 
 dict." For this they had no commission. And now, as it were, 
 without going out of the jury-box, they are to proceed upon an un- 
 authorized recommendation of the Bishops — one for which no prece- 
 dent or direction can be found — and as it weie feared to select any 
 other men with whom to trust our Bishop's character. Whatever re- 
 spect we may entertain for these gentlemen of the Committee, it 
 may be looked on with suspicion. The public have to be satisfied. 
 That is the^great ordeal at last ; and we must act with proper defer- 
 ence to it. But I have taken up more time than I intended, and I 
 submit the matter to the good sense of the Convention. 
 
 The Bishop — The question will now be taken upon the reaolution 
 moved by the gentleman from Elizabethtown. The proposed amend- 
 ment having been withdrawn, it stands now as it was originally ofFeredj 
 including the names of the old Committee. ' 
 
 The resolution was then read, aa follows : 
 
52 
 
 " Resolved, That the new matters contained in the presentment 
 read before that Court, be referred to James Potter, J. H. Wakefield, 
 C. M. Barker, D. B. Ryall,T. H. Whitney, Henry McFarlan and J. 
 L. McKnight, with instructions to proceed with diligence and with 
 all convenient dispatch, to make a full investigation of the new mat- 
 ters contained in the paper aforesaid, and that thdy report to this 
 Convention." 
 
 Hon. James Parker — I move to amend it. Sir, by adding, after 
 what is said in reference to " the new matters" — and all other mat- 
 ters which were not examined in the first presentment. 
 
 Mr. Halsteu — I second that amendment. [Some further remarks 
 were made by Mr. H., and hy another member, which could not be 
 heard amid the confusion.^ 
 
 Mr. Parker — My amendment, as written, reads — ■ , 
 
 " And also all other matters in the last presentment, not already 
 examined into by that Committee." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on adopting the proposed 
 amendment, the Secretary called the roll by orders. The result was 
 as follows : 
 
 Of the Clergy— Aye, ; No, 21 ; Declined, 2. 
 
 Of the Laky— Aye, 8 ; No, 21. 
 
 Mr. Halsted — I did not fully understand the amendment of the 
 gentleman from Amboy ; it did n't go far enough; and I now offer 
 the following : 
 
 "And, also, all other charges which shall be presented to said Com- 
 mittee by any responsible person." 
 
 I move this as an amendment, 
 
 Mr. Thompson — Has not the motion just put by the Bishop set- 
 tled the question, that a large majority (if I understand the vote) are 
 in favor of the resolution as proposed ? This is the view I take of it. 
 And besides, the preamble, which contains the decision of the Court 
 under which we are called upon to act, only specifies certain particu- 
 lar points. It is in relation to the four charges which have not been 
 investigated, and nothing else. 
 
 Mr. J. W. CoNDiT — The amendment is not in order ; for this is 
 not a Special Convention, and it is not according to the call of the 
 Bishop. It is out of order. 
 
 Mr. Halsted — I don't want to press it, if the Convention is set on 
 having another investigation of charges against the Bishop. They 
 have appointed the Committee, to suit themselves, and have taken good 
 care not to put any of the minority in the Convention on it, lest they 
 should not have everything their own way. 
 
 Mr. Ryall — We could not appoint you. The gentleman is dis- 
 qualified, because he is one of the Trustees of the College. The 
 gentleman ought to be consistent. 
 
 [Some few words were added by Mr. Halsted, which, amid cries of 
 " question," were not understood.'] 
 
 The Bishop — The vote will now be taken upon the original mo- 
 tion. 
 
 The question was taken viva voce, and declared by the Chair to be 
 carried by sound. 
 
 Mr. Cortlandt Parker — Mr. President, upon what are we 
 voting ? 
 
 The Bishop — On the resolutioD. 
 
53 
 
 Mr. Parker — I was not aware of that. I thought the vote was 
 on the amendment last offered. I did not understand it to be with- 
 drawn. 
 
 The Bishop — The amendment was not in order. The question 
 was upon adopting the resolution, and was so announced. 
 
 Mr. Parker — I did not understand it. And I wish the privilege of 
 recording my vote on the resolution, and therefore call for a division 
 and the Ayes and Noes. 
 
 Several Members — It is too late ; it is too late ! 
 
 Rev, Mr. Southard — Better take the Noes without the Ayes, if 
 we take them at all. 
 
 Mr. Parker — The Noes without the Ayes ! A fair proposition, 
 truly ! Well done for you, Sir — the canonical, legal expounder here 
 — who will have everything done in strict accordance with law and 
 canon ! Now you wish the vote taken, if at all, by the canonical 
 mode of only showing the strength of one side. And you oppose 
 taking the vote at all ! I should like to know if the minority in this 
 Convention are to be accorded any rights — if even the poor right of 
 exhibiting their vote is to be accorded them. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Southard — So far from not according to the minority 
 their rights, the majority of this Convention have ghown the utmost 
 generosity to the minority. Have we not listened. Sir, in patience, 
 these six hours, to the speeches of the minority — this tiresome, use- 
 less, prosy discussion ? And now the minority complain that their 
 rights are denied them ! 
 
 Mr. C. Parker. — Well done. Sir, again ! Well done ! this com- 
 plaint about losing time, from a gentleman who has the idea that he 
 argues his case with such consummate ability, that he must inflict on 
 this Convention, as he did this morning, a two hours reading of his 
 long mis-called argument before the Court of Bishops — a paper long 
 ago printed and in the hands, in common with the public, of every 
 person in this house. Well done! to talk of generosity to the minori- 
 ty, when we stand upon this floor with the right of speech — a right, 
 as good as that of any man living, in whatever relation. 
 
 I say that the minority of this Convention are not accorded their 
 rights, if the course proposed be pursued, and I ask whether this right 
 of recording our vote when we misapprehended the question taken, is 
 to be denied to us ? 
 
 Hon. Mr. Milltr — I should like to know what right the gentle- 
 man has ? The question has been taken, and the vote is declared. 
 He has no right now, to a vote by Orders. 
 
 Mr. Parker — I ask the gentlemen, whether, in the distinguished 
 body of which ho is a member, if a senator, immediately upon the 
 declaration of a vote, asserts that he misapprehended the question 
 voted upon, and asks a division, or the privilege of declaring his vote, 
 Will it be denied him ? 
 
 Mr. Miller — Certainly, Sir, it is every day's practice. 
 
 Mr. Parker— I have a better opinion of the courtesy of the Senate. 
 
 After some more remarks from Mr. Miller, the question was taken 
 by orders, with the following result: of the Clergy, aye, 23 ; no, 0; 
 declined, 3: of the Laity, aye, 21 ; no, 8; divided, 1. 
 
 The Bishop. — The second of the Resolutions is now the question 
 in order. 
 
 A Member — Let us know what it is. I don't know what the 
 
54 
 
 second Resolution is about. Why isn't it read, as is customary in 
 such cases ? iCries of " question."^ 
 
 The second part of the Resolutions was read, as follows : 
 
 "Resolved, That the Committee have power to fill any vacancy oc- 
 curring among its members." 
 
 The yeas and nays were called, and resulted as follows : of the 
 Clergy, aye, 24 ; no, 3 ; declined, 1 : of the Laity, aye, 22 ; no, 7. 
 
 Mr. Ciietwood — The question having been carried on the second 
 resolution, I suppose the other is now in order. 
 
 The Bishop — It is moved, That when this Convention adjourns, 
 they adjourn to meet in this place, at 10 o'clock, a. m., on the 1st day 
 of December next. 
 
 The Secretary moved to amend, by substituting " in St. Mary's 
 Church, Burlington." The Resolution as amended, was then put and 
 carried viva voce. 
 
 Mr. J. J. Chetwood — I think I have the privilege of correcting a 
 false statement which has gone forth through the press, which reflects 
 both upon me and this Convention. I wish to read an article in the 
 Episcopal Recorder — the Police Gazette of the Church. I refer to the 
 number of that paper in which is the following — [Mr. C. here read an 
 article from some paper, '\ 
 
 I now, upon my own free motion, say that this is untrue. I never 
 made any arrangement — never understood any arrangement — and 
 knew nothing of what is here stated. I remained here, and voted, as 
 it is put in the journal. I pronounce that article is every word of it 
 false. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Sheumax — Don't let the amiable gentleman from Eliza- 
 bethtown be too fast. In what relates to himself, he may settle his 
 own affairs in any way he chooses. But he goes too far; for there is 
 truth in the statements made in that article, and I call upon the Rev. 
 iMr. Rose, whose name is recorded as having voted, to say whether he 
 was not at the time at home in his bed. He has said so, and will con- 
 firm the statement if he is present. 
 
 Mr. Chetwood — I believe I have the person who wrote that article 
 now under my eye ; and I say that he has been guilty of a false and 
 malicious statement. 
 
 Mr. Sherman — If the gentleman refers to me in his remark, I beg 
 leave to say that he may believe what he chooses ; but I suppose i 
 know a little about this. I have not avowed myself as the author of 
 the article in question, nor do I intend to assume responsibility for it. 
 The gentleman is guessing, after all, if he attributes the thing to me. 
 
 Mr. Chetwood — You have not disavowed it. 
 
 Mr. Sherman — Neither do I intend to do that, till I think I have 
 proper occasion to. It's soon enough to fix it upon me when I have 
 adopted its authorship. I wish it understood, and I beg the gentle- 
 man to observe, that 1 have not acknowledged the authorship of that 
 article. I simply affirm that a certain statement it makes is so, how- 
 ever he may pronounce it to be false. And I don't suppose it follows 
 as a matter of course, because I insist upon a certain fact, that all the 
 vagrant children of the Press, which are not otherwise fathered, are 
 to be palmed off on me. Indeed, I may say, these matters are not in 
 my line. [Much confusion, and many leaving the house.^ 
 
 Mr. Chetwood — 1 have fixed this thing where it belongs, and 
 that's all I wanted. I am satisfied to let it rest where it is. 
 
55 
 
 Mr. Sherman — If the gentleman is satisfied with his mistake, very 
 well. He is entirely welcome to it, and to anything else of this sort. 
 I consider this whole matter as irregular, and I shall say no more. 
 
 Mr. Chetwood — I don't think you'd better; you'll get deeper in 
 the mire if you do. [Many of the members leaving and much noise, in 
 which the remaining words of Mr. C, were lo&t.] 
 
 The House was called to order, and after the customary devotions 
 by the Bishop, the Convention adjourned at about 11 o'clock, to meet 
 in St. Mary's Church, Builington, on Wednesday, the 1st of December, 
 at 10 o'clock A.M. 
 
 ;7l p p e U M i- 
 
 As reference is frequently made in the foregoing Report to 
 the Canon passed in General Convention, at Philadelphia in 
 Oct. 1814, the whole is here appended : 
 
 CANOX III. Or THE Trial of a Bishop. 
 {Theforimr Canon on tliis ivhject loas the fourth of 18il.] 
 
 Sectiox 1. The trial of a Bishop shall be on a Presentment in writing, specifying 
 the offense of which he is alleged to be guilt)-, with reasonable certainty as to time, 
 place, and circnmstances. Such Presentment may be made for any Crime or Immo- 
 rality, for Heresy, for Violation of the Constitution or Canons of this Church, or of 
 the Church in the Diocese to which he belongs. Said Presentment may be made by 
 the Convention of the Diocese to which the accused Bishop belongs, two-thirds of eacli 
 order present concurring : FrovideJ, that two-thirds of the Clergy entitled to seats iu 
 said Convention be present : and Pivvided also, that two-thirds of the Parishes cauon- 
 ically in union with said Convention be represented therein; and the vote thereon 
 shall not in any case take place on the same day on which the resolution to Present is 
 offered; and it may also be made b}- any three Bishops of this Church. When made 
 by the Convention, it shall be signed by a Committee of Prosecution, consisting of 
 three Clergymen and three laymen, to be appointed for that purpose; and when b}' 
 three Bishops, it shall be signed by them respectively, in their official characters. 
 
 Sectiox 2. Such Presentment shall be addressed " To the Bishops of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in the United States," and shall be delivered to the Presiding 
 Bishop, who shall send copies thereof without delay to the several Bishops of this 
 Church'then being within tLie territory of the United States : Provided, that if the Pre- 
 sentment be made by three Bishops, no copies shall be sent to them ; and Provided fur- 
 ther, that if the Presiding Bishop be the subject of the Piesentment, or if he be one of 
 the three Bishops presenting, such Presentment shall be delivered to the Bishop next in 
 senioritj', the same not being one of the three presenting; whose duty it shall be, in 
 such case, to perform all the duties enjoined by this Canon on the Presiding Bishop. 
 Upon a Presentment made in either of the modes pointed out iu Section 1, of this 
 Canon, the course of proceeding shall be as follows: 
 
 Section 3. The Presiding Bishop shall, without delay, cause a copy of the Present- 
 ment to be served on the accused, and shall give notice, with all convenient speed, to 
 the several Bishops then being within the territory of the United States, appointing a 
 time and place for their assembling together ; and any number thereof, iDcing not less 
 than seven, other than the Bishops presenting, then and there assembled,*shall consti- 
 tute the Court for the trial of the accused : he shall also, at the same time, cause at 
 least thirty days' notice of the time and place of meeting to be given, both to the ac- 
 cused, and to the parties presenting him, by a Summoner to be appointed by him; 
 and shall also call on the accused by a written summons to appear and answer. The 
 
 ?lace of trial shall alwayij be within the Diocese iu which the accused Bishop resides, 
 f the accused Bishop appear, before proceeding to trial he shall be called on b}^ the 
 Court to say whether he is guilty or not guilty of the offense or offenses charged 
 against him; and on his neglect or refusal, the plea oi not fjuiliy shall be entered for 
 him, and the trial shall proceed : Provided, that, for sufficient cause, the Court may 
 adjourn from time time ; and Provided also, that the accused shall at all times duringf 
 the trial have liberty to be present, to produce his testimony, and to make his defense. 
 Section 4. When the Court proceeds to trial, some officer authorized by law to ad- 
 minister oaths, may, at the desire of either party, be requested to administer an oath 
 
5G 
 
 or affirmation to the witnesses, that they will testify the truth, the whole truth, and 
 nothing but the truth, concerning the matters charged in the Presentment, and the 
 testimony of each witness shall be reduced to writing. And in case the testimony 
 of any witness whose atendance on the trial, cannot be obtained, is desired, it shall be 
 lawful for either parly, at any time after notice of the Presentment is served on the 
 accused, to apply to the Court, if in session, or if not, to any Bishop, who shall there- 
 upon appoint a Commissary to take the deposition of such witness. And such party, 
 so desiring to take the deposition, shall give to the other party, or some one of them, 
 reasonable notice of the time and place of taking the deposition, accompanying such 
 notice with the interrogatories to be propounded to the witness; whereupon it shall 
 be lawful for the other party, within six days after such notice, to propound cross-in- 
 terrogatories ; and such interrogatories and cross-interrogatories if any be propounded, 
 shall be sent to the Commissary, who shall thereupon proceed to take the testimony 
 of such witness, and transmit it, under seal, to the Court. But no deposition shall be 
 read at the trial unless the Court have reasonable assurance that the attendance of 
 the witness cannot be procured, or unless both parties shall consent that it may be 
 read. 
 
 Section 5. The Court having fully heard the allegations and testimony of the par- 
 ties, and deliberately considered the same, after the parties have withdrawn, shall 
 declare respectively, whether, in their opinion, the accused be guilty or not guilty of 
 the charges and specifications contained in the Presentment, in the order in which 
 they are set forth; and the declaration of a majority of the Court being reduced to 
 writing and signed by those who assent thereto, shall be considered as the judgment 
 of the said Court, and shall be pronounced in the presence of the parties, if they choose 
 to attend. And if it be that the accused is guilty, the Court shall, at the same time, 
 pass sentence, and award the penalty of Admonition, Suspension, or Deposition, as to 
 them the oflense or oflenses proved may seem to deserve: Provided, that if the ac- 
 cused shall, before sentence is passed, show satisfactory cause to induce a belief that 
 justice has not been done, the Court, or a majority of its members, may, according to 
 a sound discretion, grant are-hearing: and in either case, before passing sentence, 
 the accused shall have the opportunity of being heard, if he have aught to say in excuse 
 or palliation : Provided, that the accused shall not be held guilty unless a majority of 
 the Court shall concur, in regard to one or more of the offenses charged, and only as 
 relates to those cbai-ges in which a majority so concur. 
 
 Section 6. If the accused Bishop neglect or refuse to appear, according to the sum- 
 mons of the Court, notice having been served on him as aforesaid, except for some 
 reasonable cause, to be allowed by the said Court, they shall pronounce him to be in 
 contumacy ; and sentence of Suspension from the Ministry shall be pronounced against 
 him for contumacy by the Court; but the said sentence shall be reversed, if, within 
 three calendar mouths, he shall tender himself ready, and accordingly appear, and 
 take his trial on the Presentment. But if the accused IBishop shall not so tsnder him- 
 self before the expiration of the said three mouths, the sentence of Deposition from 
 the Ministry shall be pronounced against him by the Court. And it shall be the duty 
 of the Court, whenever sentence has been pronounced, whether it be on trial or for 
 contumacy, to communicate such sentence to the Ecclesiastical authority of every Di- 
 ocese of this Church; and it shall be the duty of said Ecclesiastical authorities to 
 cause such sentence to be publicly read to the Congregations of each Diocese by the 
 respective Ministers thereof. 
 
 Section 7. All notices and papers contemplated in this Canon, may be served by a 
 Summoncr or Summoners, to be appointed by the Bishop to whom the Presentment 
 is made, or by the Court, when the same is in session ; and the certificate of any such 
 Summoner shall be evidence of the due service of a notice or paper. In case of service 
 by any other person, the fact may be proved by the affidavit of such person. The de- 
 livery of a written notice or paper to a party, or the leaving it at his place of res- 
 idence, shall be deemed a sufficient service of such notice or paper. 
 
 Section 8. The accused party may have the privilege of appearing hj counsel, and 
 in case of the exercise of such privilege, but not otherwise, those presenting shall have 
 the like privilege. 
 
 Section 9. If at any time, during the session of any General Convention, any Bishop 
 shall make to the House of Bishops a written acknowledgment of his unworthiness or 
 criminality jn any particular, the House of Bishops may proceed, without trial, to deter- 
 mine by vote, whether the said offending and confessing Bishop shall be admonished, or 
 be suspended from his office, or be deposed ; and the sentence thus determined by a ma- 
 jority of the votes of the House of Bishops, shall be pronounced by the Bishop presiding, 
 in the presence of the saidHouse of Bishops, and entered on the Journal of the House, 
 and a copy of the said sentence, attested by the hand and seal of the Presiding Bishop, 
 shall be sent to the said Bishop, and to the Standing Committee of his Diocese, and 
 to the Ecclesiastical authority of every Diocese of this Church; and it shall be the 
 duty of said Ecclesiastical authorities to cause such sentence, unless it be the sentence 
 of admonition, to be publicly read to the Congregation of each Diocese, by the respect- 
 ive Ministers thereof. 
 
 Section 10. Any Bishop of this Church not having Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, shall 
 be subject to Presentment, trial, and sentence, as hereinbefore provided, but shall not 
 be included in any other provision of this Canon. 
 
 Section 11. Canon IV. of 1841 is hereby repealed. 
 
©AYLORD BROS. Inc. 
 Syracuse, N. Y. 
 Slocklon, Calif. 
 
BX5960 .D63P97 
 
 A report of the sayings and doings in 
 
 Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00051 2659