I ..

ID4r Qtnutrnurrsy ~rtwrrn tqr i!\t. i!\ru~ QI. fl. T&rrkwitq1 i. 11.1 au~ tqr ]Jrstry nf tqr Qlqurrq nf tqr A~urut T&irmiugqam1 Alabama

1Junr .9, 1904

R0 8fRT8. 8 0 fll , P RINTf ftl, ' " ""'·

Samford University Library

\

In view of wide-spread misapprehension, ,the time has come when we fee t tha t we could not. without sad neglect of duty to the Parish we represent :tnd to the Church people of Alabama, refrain longer from making a state­ment concerni ng the causes which have operated to bring about the strained reiRtions that have exis ted for some months between the Bishop of the Diocese, and the Vestry and Congregation of the Church of the Advent.

We issue this statement in no spirit of bitterness, in no mood of reckless disregard for any sacred intere>t which it is our privilege to conserve and defend , a nd with no desire to revive a disagreeable controversy that has been finally reckoned with the things o'f the past. The step we now take we would avoid if in conscience we could. But it has been forced upon us in such :t way, that righteous avoidance of it has been rendered impossible.

As official representatives of t he Church of the Advent, we believe that in what we haye done and left undone in our dealings with the presen t Bishop we a re j us t ly entitled to the cordial sympathy and approval of all fair-minded Ch'urch people in this Diocese. If a ny be disposed to withhold such sympathy and approval, today, we are en tirely confident that tomorrow will a mply jus tify the wisdom of our course, and that, without seeking it. we shall be atcorded the g ratitude of our fellow-churchmen throughout the length ana breadth of the s tate.

We submit for their cons ideration the following record of 'facts: On the 29th day of August, 1903, we elected the Rev. Quincy Ewing, of

Greeu ville. ~iss., Rector of our Parish, and notified him by letter of his elec­tion. About two weeks later , the Rev. Mr. Ewing-having in the meantime visited the Parish and conferred with the Ve: try- signitied to us h is accept­anee of the call extended. We promptly sent notice to the Bishop of the Rev. :-.rr. Ewing's elE>ct ion and h is acceptance; and, very greatly to our surprise, we re<"eived a letter from hi m informing us that our mode of procedure in lhe aforesa id election was not in accordance with a canon of the Diocese. We had been guil ty of the same mode of procedu re, a 'few weeks previously, in the elec:tion of the Rev. P . G. Sears, and the Bishop, having notice of this elec­tion, s uggested no irregularity whatever in connection therewith. The partic·ular ca non to which he called our attention bad been simply overlooked, hy us in each case, as it has been overlooked by probably nine-ten ths of the ve!>tries who have elected Rectors in t his Diocese. We had no intention wbat­<>ver of wilfull y di.: regarding it. Therefore, on receipt o t' Bishop Beckwi th 's letter, we met, without demur, and undertook to follow in our procedure the provisions of Title 2, Canon 3, to which we had been refer red. We nomi­nated the Rev. Mr. Ewing for the Rectorship of our Parish, notified the Bishop of onr action, and requested whatever communication it was neces­sary for us to have from him in order to proceed to a canonical election. Re­plying to th is notifl<·ation and reques t, the Bishop thanked us for the prompt manner in whic·h we had conformed to his s uggestion; but, instead o'f send­in~ us the ''sufficient evidence in writing" as to Mr. Ewing's qualification as a clergyman, he expressed his desire to meet the Vest ry In conference at an early day; and September 27th was appointed for such conference. On that clay WC' met the Bishop in Birmingham; and not unti l that da y did we have knowledge of any serio\l.:l ground of difference between ourselves

Samford University Library

3

and him. Our conference w ith h im lasted for near l y f\v (' hours. \\'(' w r.r(' appric:ed by him f or .the first t ime of h i :> objection to lh(' Rev :\l r Ewlt1~

becoming R ('ctor of the Chur ch of the A dvent, on the ground, as al l('~cd.

that Mr. Ewing had officia ted in the Dioc·ese o f :\fissl~slppl at the marrla~:<' ot the R ev. Charles Morris, a divorced man .

It was no n ews to us that t he R ev. ~r r. E wing had offidatl'd at th is mar­riage, several years before we extended h i m the eall to our Parish . Dut. knowing that the act complain ed of by B ishop Beckwith was clone I n th(' Diocese of Missi ssi ppi , where M r. E wing bad been for mor <' than eight con­secutive years R ector o:f St . Jam es Chu1 ch, Greenville, W(' felt quit(' su r (' that the constituted E ccl esiastical A uthorities o f th<' :\1issi <sippi Olor('s(' must h aYe tal{en cognizance o f the said act , ancl duly passed upon liH' qu('s­tion as to whether the Ma rriage and Divorce Canon of the C'hurr h had. or had not, been v iolated by l\Ir. E win g. B efore we elel' ted hi m our R('(·tor, W I'

had the besl r eason to bel ieve that his standing a• a tlergy man i n t h(' Dio­cese of Mississi ppi was absolutel y unquestioned. ll'l' had m adt· dut· intlur ­ries, a11d had received information directly from a member of/he ,1/issrssrpp z Stmrdi 11g Committee.

But we listen ed patien tly to B ishop Bec·kwith 's al legecl ohj<'l'lion to ~t r.

E wi 11g. and accept ed in good humor the statem en t o f his reason for cll'lay in sending us the "sufficien t evidence i n writing" we had asl\ecl for. At the same time, w e showed no si gn of w avering in our desire to have :\lr Ewin~ as R ector o f our Church. T he Bishop, understanding t hat we l-'hould I nsist upon electing Mr. Ewing, declared that he woul d put no obstarl!' in our way by tal<ing advantage of any tedwicali(t'. " I am going," he said. " to Dr. Bratton 's eonsecration , and will go to Gr eenville to sec ~l r. !~w ing, and haH' a talk with him. If he tells m e that he officiated at the :\[orris marria.e;f'. I will say to him, 'Broth er , I prefer t hat you do not rome to A lahama.' It. af ter I have said this to him, he i s willi ng to come, I will make no furthPr object ion . And, gentlemen , there will be no aftermath to thi s matter , so rar as I am r oncerned."

'I'he Bishop declared further. that w h ile in ;\1ississ ippi. he would d iKcul-'s Mr. Ewing's connecti on w i t h t he M orris marriage with no on<' bu t -'lr. Ewln~

himself, and w ould permit no one else to discuss it with him. lie a ppearNI to Ja:v special emphasis on what he declar ed to be his duty-to "go to ~l r.

Ewing. direct ." On being t hus assured by the B ishop as to his attitude and purpose. wr

snpposed that an amicable, final, and satisfactory settlement or the matt<'r at

issue between him and us h ad been reach ed. H e declared to us- at taching to his pr omise 110 tomlrl wll of 1111_1' (rl//­

"1 will give you a certificate that :\[r. E w ing is a qualifi<'<l l'ler .e;ym an; for he is a qualified clergyman. I would giv e it to you. now , but r haven't t hP­pen , ink an d paper .''* ( A s he sai<l thi s, he looked about for writin~ ma­

ter ial s.) " I will send i t to you at once." Having already nominated Mr. Ewin g at a form<'r m<'eti n~ and asl<NI fo r

the Bishop's "certi f i cate," befor e this con ferenc<' acljournPd, wP passl'cl a r esolution in the Bi<hop's presence to el ec t him again forthwith , and procePdl'rl

to d,., so. The con:Cerenee came to an end with m utual ex pressiOn!! of <'ordlal aym-

•Th is Conference was he ld in the ,·acant Rectory.

Samford University Library

. "'-' ( ,;,

pathy an1l good will , after W( had appoi nted a committeee, viz.: Col. R. 11. Pearson and Dr. E. P. Riggs. to go to Green ville wit hout delay, in­form \1 r . Ewing of our complete understanding with t he Bishop, assure him o f our fu ll l'Ontidence and regard, and u rge him to abide by his deci.sion to h<'C0!1le our Rector, in spite of the objection to him tha t the Bishop had ex­pressed.

At thE' elate of th is con ference. September 27, 1903. the Vesti·y of the Church of the Ac!Yen t was composed of t he following gentlemen , a majority of whGm tool' part in the discussion t hat there occurred: R . H . Pearson, Senior \\"arden; Robert Jemi.>on. Junior Wa rden ; E. M. Tutwiler , Rufus N. H h0cl<.'"', Judge Samuel E. Greene, Dr. E . P . Riggs, Robert A. Terrell, T . 0 . Smith. J . B. Col>bs, Charl es Roher ts, S. E . Thompson, H. K. Milner; John V. Coe, Se<·reta ry.

On Tuesday. September 29th. our commiltec returned from Greenville, and r"I>Oned that :\!r. Ewing, being fully apprised of what had occurred at the <·onfe rence l>etween the Bishop and the Vestry, and assured by them that his ,l~<·'ination of our call at that time would produce discord between the Bishop 1:111 the Ycstry and Congregation instead of healing it, had declared himself wi lling to abide by his decision. and named the second Sunday in Oc­tober as the day when he would be a ble to ta ke cha rge of o ur Parish. Not haYing a ntidpated any serious obstacle whatever in the wa y of his removal to Birmingham. :\!r. Ewing had then resigned h is charge in Greenville, and his household good;; were being packed and prepared :fo1· shipment-so we were informed by the committee.

\\"hile :\lessrs. Pearson and R iggs were in conversation with l\lr. Ewing in GreenYill~>, :\Ioncla y, September 28th, he received a telegra m from Bishop Ued\with . saying:

"Importan t t ha t I see you. Meet me in J aci\SOn tomorrow. Answer." J us t before the receipt of this te legram, Mr. Ewing had mentioned to our

<"Ommittee hi> regret at not being a ble to attend the Consecration of Bishop Bra tton. a nd of having written to Bishop Bratton expressing t his regret, and rxp laining that personal affa irs absolutely rcquin·d his presence a t home. li e. t herefore, in t he presence of Messrs. Pear.'On and Riggs, t elegraphed to l3ishop Betk with:

"Regret, impossible to meet you in J ackson." These gentlemen expressed to :\lr. Ewing the opinion, that Bishop Beck··

with would certa inly Yisit him in Greenville before returning to Alabama.

On September 29th, the Rev . Dr. Bratton was consecrated Bishop of Mis­:-:h;sippi in J ackson. The next day, Bishop Bratton a rrived in Birming­ham on his retum from J ackson, :\liss., and s tated to our Senior Warden; .. Bishop Bratton is not going to give :\1r . Ewing a letter of t ransfer in the lonn laid clown in the Canon : But I will give you that 'certificate.'"

The reacle r is asked to recall here Bishop Beckwit h's promise to the Ves­t!,., that he would not while in Mississ ippi d iscuss t he matter of Mr. Ewing's connection with the ).!orris marriage w ith any one but Mr. Ewing hi mself! He di1l ·lisc·uss that matter with Bishop Bratton , before the latte r had been Bishop ol :\l ississippi lwdz·c !tours, a nd before he ha d had an opportunity to in form h imself fully c·on<·erning the stat us of t he clergy or his Diocese. Beyond any rlou)) l . Bishop Bratton was tal<en a t unawares, a nd gave a promise, or· ex­pr"sl-<ed a resolve, which we have good reason to believe, he would not have

Samford University Library

given, or expressed, had he been allowed more time for consideration aml investigation.

We do not charge that Bishop Bec-kwith exac·ted, or received, a specific promise from Bishop Bratton not to give the Rev. :\Jr. Ewing a letter dimis­sor:v in the precise form suggested (but not required) by the Canon. But we do assert, without hesitation, that there was a discussion relati\·e to ~I r.

Ewing's election as Rector of the Church of the Advent; that this discussion was engaged in by Bishop Beckwith; that in the course of it he made clear to Bishop Bratton his unwillingness to receive Mr. Ewing in the Diocese of Alabama, and that he left Jackson knowing that Bishop Bratton was com­mitted to a certain course; viz.: not to issue to :VIr. Ewing a Jetter dimissory in the form which would compel him (Bishop Beckwith) to accept it within s ix months, or demand an inquiry instituted in the ?llississippi Diocese, on the bngis of rumors he rpight have heard affecting Mr. Ewing·s character as a cler-gyman.

We assert that, to the time of this discussion, it had never occurred to Bishop Bratton to withhold 'from Mr. Ewing a letter dimissory in the u~ua l f0rm. Beginning the said discussion, or after it was begun by some one else, Bishop Beckwith said to Bishop Bratton:

"Are you going to give Quincy Ewing a letter dimissory to the Diocese of Alabama?" To this question Bishop Bratton replied: " V.'hy. I suppose so; I know of no rea>on why I sho uld not. I haYe jus t had a letter from Mr. Ewing in which he says that he will soon have to ask to be t ransferred to Alabama." It was then that Bishop Beckwith made known the ground of his alleged objection to i\Ir. Ewing. ( We insert the word, " alleged." advzsedly : for in conversation with an intimate friend of his on or about O.::tober 6, /903 , B1shop Beck­with stated that the Morrris marn'age was a " minor mat ter ," and that his " chief ob;(:ction · · to Mr. Ewing was "on the ground of his theology.'·)

On October 1st, the day after his statement to our Senior Warden. l\Ir. R. H. Pearson, quoted above, in regard to the giving of the •·certificate," Bishop Beckwith wrote a letter to l\Ir. Pearson from whic: h we take the following sentences:

"J regret to notify your Vestry that I returned from l\Iississippi. wi th the fears expressed last Sunday afternoon. confirmed. .The term. 'Qualified clergyman of this Church,' as used in Title 2, Canon 3. Sec. 1. of the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese of Alabama. and a~ deseript i\·e ot the clergy of the Diocese of Alabama and of those who shall successfully seek entrance into the Diocese of Alabama. signifies. in the mind of the Bishop ot Alabama, a clergyman 'in regular standing. who is not known or believed to have been justly liable to evil report. for error in religion or l' idousness of life, for three years last past.'"

''This language is quoted f rom the Canons of the General Chureh. and your Bishop has neither the power nor the desire to alter its wording ...

This letter was written by Bishop Beckwith to excuse himself for with­hoJ,]ing the "certificate" which we had asked for, and he hacl tlltt•quh.'orai~J'

promised to give. In it he clearly claims to have discoYered while in Miss iss ippi that Mr. Ewing was known ot· belie1·ed (by the .\liss iss ippi Ecclesiastical Authorities, of course) to be justly liable to •·e,•il report for error in religion, or viciousness of life," wi thin three years last past! Yet.

l~sco. than three days before this letter was written to our Senior 'Varden,

Samford University Library

---\

6

Bishop Beckwith had approached the Rev. George C. Harr is, D. D. , Presi­dent of the Mississippi Standing Committee, in J ackson, with the question: "Dr. Harris, what would you have done, if l\lr. Ewing had applied to you for a letter dimissory to Alabama?" and had gotten from h im the reply: ··r would unht·silalingly have given it."!! !

In :Mississippi, the Standing Committee plays the part of a Grand Jury, and any charge against a clergyman must be investigated and passed upon by that Committee, before he can be proceeded against. As Pr esident of the l\lississippi Standing Committee, Dr. Harris could not but have known of any charge against Mr. Ewing affecting his character as a clergyman : could not but have been thoroughly cognizant of Mr. Ewing's standing as a clergyman in the Diocese of Mississippi; and it is 111/crly incouccivable that Bishop Beckwith could have been ignorant of the Rev. Dr. Harris's familiarity with the facts! Yet, on October 1st, within three days of his conversation with the President of the Mississippi Standing Committee, Bishop Beckwith notified us that, while in Mississippi, his "fears" con­cerning Mr. Ewing's standing as a clergyman had been "confirmed"! !

October 3d, 1903, Bishop Bratton gave l\lr. Ewing a letter of transfer in the following language:

"The Bishop's House. Battle Hill.

"Jackson, Miss., October 3d, 1903. "I hereby certify that the Rev. Quincy Ewing, who has signified his

desire to be transferred to the Diocese of Alabama, is a Presbyter in good standing in this Diocese of Mississippi; exercising a useful, Godly, ministry as Rector of the church in Greenville, and, so fa r as I know or believe, he has not been justly liable to evil report for error in religion.

"The well known and widely-published fact of his having married a divorced clergyman (not divorced for the cause of adultery) about two years and a half ago (in June, 1901) renders it impossible to give a letter in the c;monical form.

"This act was brought to the attention of the then E cclesia stical Authority of this Diocese, and the matter was, and has been since, sus­pended so far as Mr. Ewing was involved ; and, believing in Mr. E wing's purity of motive (mistaken as his judgment was) and in h is own moral rectitude, I have no desire to, nor shall I , take any step in the premises, but accP.pt him as a qualified clergyman.

" I am also persuaded and assured that the Bishop's construction of thr Canon of Marriage and Divorce will regulate his acts in future cases.

" THEODORE DUBOSE BRATTON, "Bishop of Mississippi."

::-;oT J~.-Inusuat form the tetter of transfer would ha,·e been : " I hereby certify that the Rev. Quirtcy Ewing, who has signified his desire to be transferred to the Diocese of Alabama, is a Presbyter in good sta nding in this Diocese of :Mississippi, and has not. so far as I know or be­lieve, been justly liable to evil report for erro r in re ligion, or viciousness of life, within three years last past.,.

Inasmuch as in the le tter given by Bishop Bratton. he certified to Mr. Ewing's good standing in the Diocese of Mississippi; to the usefulness and Godline~s of his ministry, h is purity of motive, his moral rectitude. and had imputed to him nothing worse than a n error of judgment, it is clear that nishop Bratton omitted the phmse, ·•or viciousness of life,'" only to avoid followiug fill' usual form ...

Samford University Library

7

(It is but fair to Mr. Ewing to insert here, that when Bishop Bratton used thfl word "suspended" as above, he misinterpreted the record of the Stand­ing Committee, and had not sought information from that Committee.)

The letter of transfer was sent to us at once by Mr. Ewing for delivery to Bishop Beckwith. It reached us October 4th, and, appreciating the necessity of haste, in order to avoid the embarrassment to ourselves and the entire congregation of the Church of the Advent of having the second Sunday of the month come and go, and Mr. Ewing absent from the services of our church, we immediately did all within our power to get into com­munication with the Bishop.

Learning that he would be in Carlowville the evening of October 4th, or t he next morning, we telegraphed him to that point to know when and where he could meet a committee of the Vestry. A copy of this telegram we sent to him by mail. We received from him no reply, though we under­stood, later, that he received both telegram and copy. The next day, :\1onday, 0<'t.ober 5th, we telegraphed to Selma and other points in an effort to Jearn where the Bishop could be found. On the night of this day, the Rev. J . A. VanHoose left for Carlowville, to bunt up the Bishop and present to him a copy of the letter of transfer. :\1r. VanHoose was successful in his search, but returned with the information that the Bishop declined to accept the said letter. He was unable to tell us where the Bishop could be found, th<' next day, or the day thereafter, having learned only that he would be in Mobile "the latter part of the week." We telegraphed repeatedly to different points, and, though we were reliably informed that some of these messages were delivered, we received no reply. Thursday, October 8th, the Senior Warden went to Mobile, and there found the Bishop. Thursday night. He positively declined to accept the letter of transfer given by Bishop Bmtton on the ground that it was "irregular," thus clear ly disregarding. it seemed to us, his promise made to the Vestry to take advantage of no technical ity.

The second Sunday in October came and went. W e endured ou r em­barrassment; we were still without a Rector ; and, apparently, unable to get within close range of our Bishop, or to wir; from him any response to our appeals other than the unfeeling answer: ·'I am not responsible for it; you are responsible."

Wednesday or Thursday following, Bishop Beckwith addressed a Jetter to the Secretary of the Vestry, to the effect, that. in conversation with ex-Governor Johnston, the latter had intimated that possibly the Vestry did not understand fully his (the Bishop's) position, and that he wished to meet the Vestry to explain it. Thinking that an explanation on the Bishop's part w!\s certainly in order, we invited him to a conference with us. the next F r iday n ight.

The conference with the Bishop of Friday, October 16th , lasted on into the early morn ing of the next day. It resulted in an agreement between the Bishop and this Vestry which seemed to leave nothing more to be desired. At the Vestry's suggestion, he wrote next morning, October 17th. several letters; two to B ishop Bratton, one of which was dictated by a member of the Vestry; and one to Mr. Ewing. These letters are here copied. They were read by this Vestry as a body, shortly after they were written, and were satisfactory to us, save as to one par ticular, viz.: we were

Samford University Library

8

not disposed to insist t hat the Rev. l\lr. Ewing should bring with him from :\lis!'issippi a letter dimissory in what Bishop Beckwith was pleased to call the ··c·anonical form;'' being well assured that the Jetter already issued by Bishop Bratton j itljillcd ez•ery 1·equireuu nt o.f tile Canon. In this letter, ;~i:::hop Bratton had certified that the Rev. Quincy Ewing was "a Presbyter in good s ta nding in the Diocese of l\Iississippi," and was accepted by him as "a 1111a lified clergyman." T his was sufficient fo r us, and we so informed Bishop BC'c·kwith the night of October 16th.

Letter No. 1. (Dictated by a member of the Vestry.)

"Birmingham, Ala ., October 17th, 1903. " Rl. Rev. T. D. Bratton, D. D. , Jackson, Miss.:

' ':\1y Dear Bishop Bratton: I have had a full , free, and frank conference with the Yestry of the Chur ch of the Advent, Birm ingham, and they, with thP enti re Parish, are extremely anxious to have the Rev. Quincy Ewing c·ail~>c! to the Rcdors!tip. If Jou can see your way clear to give Mr. Ewing the lett~r dimissory in canonical fo rm, I will welcome hiJ? into this Dic•cE-se. Faithfu lly,

"C. l\1. BECKWITH, "Bishop of Alabama."

LE•tter 1\'o. 2. (Same place and date.)

":\ly Dear Bishop: I am sure that you will r ejoice with me that all mi!"unclerstandi!1g between myself as Bishop, a nd the Vestry of t he Advent, has been removed. I wen t over the whole g round with the Vestry las t uigh t, and a more splendid set of men I never met. We differed hones tly, hnt when our differences were understood, each sympathized with the other. I do not believe that the Bishop is a ny more anxious to keep out of the Diocese what should not enter it t han are these gentlemen. T he man wlJ.o cannot bring with him the Letter Dimissory in Canonical form, I do not belie,·e one member of the Vestry of the Advent desires as his Rector. I (>J1 vy the clergyman who shall have twelve such men co-operating with h im. It is a matter of g reat r ejoicing that I ca n work together with the gent lemen who compose the Vestry of t he Church of the Advent, and I <>a rnestly hope that the Rev. Mr. Ewing will take such -steps as will rmtoz•t• .from you all obstacles, both real and tech nical, that have pre­\'<'lHE.'d you from giving h im 'The Letter Dimissory in Canonical Form.'

"I accept your judgment and conclus ions regarding Mr. Ewing's •h~>ological views, and I yield a ll objections on this score.

":\ly heart is light this morning, and I know you w ill rejoice with me. "C. M. BE CKWITH,

" Bis hop of Alabama.

"I enclose copy of letter written Mr. E wing."

Letter No. 3 (Same date a nd place.)

" Rev. Quincy Ewing, Greenville, Miss.: " My Dear Mr. Ewing: I attended a meeting of the Vest1·y of the

A<l,•ent las t night. I thoroughly unders tand these gentlemen now, and they thoroughly unders tand me. The enclosed lette1·, which I have this day

l I

Samford University Library

9

mailed to Bishop Bratton, will explain to you the result of our conference. My letter to Bishop Bratton leaves the matter just where it was. sa,·e that with it goes the perfect understanding and sympathy of the Bishop of Alabama and the Vestry of the Church of the Advent. They want no more than I want; and I want no more than they want. I have said to the Vestry that from all I know of you, I did not believe that you either de­sited to or would leave Mississippi, until all matters there, either real or technical, were cleared up. The moment Bishop Bratton can give me the Letter Dimissory in Canonical 'for m, I will welcome you into this Diocese.

"Very sincerely, "C. M. BECKWITH,

" Bishop of Alabama."

It will be observed that tecltnically Bishop Beckwith had not receded from his former position. In a sense, the "matter" was left "just where it was." But, reallJ', there was all the difference in his attitude between facing east and facing west. Formerly, he had said to Bishop Bratton. or made him understand by manner clear as speech: "I shall be offended if yol! give Mr . Ewing a letter dimissory in a form which will compel me to accept it." Now, he had said by implication : "I shall be pleased if you give Mr. Ewing the letter in obligatory form." He had formerly been op­posed to Mr . Ewing's coming into the Diocese of Alabama, and Bishop Bratton was well aware of this opposition. Now he was "earnestly hoping" that the Rev. Mr . Ewing would take such steps as would remove from Hisliop /Jrallon "all obstacles, both real and technical," which had pre,·ented the gh·ing of the letter of transfer in a specified form!

October 23d, 1903, t he Standing Committee of the Diocese of :\Iississippi mrt in Jackson, at Mr. Ewing's request and ins istence, to take action con­eerning charges "affecting his character as a clergyman," which were being circulated in consequence solely of Bishop Beckwith's objection to his removal to the Diocese of Alabama. Specifically, Mr. Ewing had been represented in the public prints as a clergyman who could not get "clearance papers" from one diocese to another. The committee met, be it understood. not at Bishop Beckwith's request, nor at Bishop Bratton's, but at Mr. E111Iizg's. re­inforced by a loyal and vigorous appeal from the Yestry of St. James Church, Greenville, fo r justice to their Rector.

That this committee did not meet for the purpose of taking final actiou, or any action 111hatever, upon any charge against ~lr. Ewing in connection with the Morris marriage, is certified to by its President. the Re,·. George C. Harris, D. D., as follows:

" Rolling Fork, l\Iiss .. No,·ember 23d, 1903.

''Tc Whom It May Concern:

"I hereby cer tify that the meeting of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Mississippi, held in J ackson, October 23d. 1903, was not called fo r the purpose of dealing further with any question that had been left su!'lpendecl by this Committee, as to the liability of the Rev. Quincy Ewing £or presentment on the charge of having violated the ~larriagc and Divorce

Samford University Library

10

Canon of t he Church . The charge agains t the Rev. Quincy Ew ing was passed upon finally by this Committee at its meeting February 26th, 1902.

(Signed) " GEORGE C. H ARRIS, "President Standing Committee, Dioces.e of Mississippi."

When the Committee met, however , it was quickly perceived t hat the o:tly charges in circula tion ·'affecting Mr. Ewing's character as a clergy­man" appeared to rest upon a mis interpretation of the Committee's p:u t and final action relative to the Morris marr iage; a mis interpretation which would have been im possible, had information and advice been "O•ll!;ht from that Committee by either the Bishop of Alabama or the Bishop of Mississippi. T herefore, the following Preamble' and Resolution , intro­duced by Judge Brame, and voted for by the seven mem bers of t he Com­mittee present, was promptly adopted:

"Whereas, This Committee, on February 26th 1902 after due considera­' ion of the men"ts of the complaint agains t the Rev. Qu incy Ewing in re­~pec:t of an alleged viola tion of Title 2, Canon 13, of the General Convention of the Church, in officiating at t he marriage of the Rev. Cl_larles Morris on JnnE' 3d. 1901, adopted the following resolution: 'Resolved, That it is the !'ense of this Committee, that there shall be no presentment made of t he t{<> \ ' Quincy Ewing for t he celebration of the marriage of the Rev. Char les :\!orris and :'\Irs . , in June, 1901, under Title 2, Canon 13, Section 2. of the Digest, because of the settled inter pretation by the Bishop of this Dio<·ese of the Canon of :\Iarriage and Divorce:

" And, Whereas, A question has now been presented to this Committee as tc whether its action in adopting this resolution on Februa ry 26th, 1902, was final;

" Therefore, Resolved, That the action of the Committee at said meeting was final, on the menls of the case, and that it was, and is , the judgment of this Commzltee, that the Rev. Quincy Ewing was not liable, and is not liable, to presentment or tn"al on the said charge."

' '1 certify t hat the above is a true extract from t he minutes of thP. Standing Committee. (Signed)

"WALTER C. WHIT AKER, Secretary . ''Jackson, Miss., November 23d, 1903."

On the Yery day of the meeting of the Mississippi Standing Committee, Uishop Bratton, though he had formerly insis ted that he could not "em­bat rass" Bishop Beckwith by transferring to Alabama a clergyman whom Bishop Beckwith did not want to come into his Diocese, and had more recently declared that he woulu not " recede" from his position, whatever might be the action of t he Standing Committee, mailed Mr. Ewing a lt>tte r dimissory in t he "Canonical form" from Washington, D. C. At th is time, Bishop Bratton !;lad doubtless learned from Bishop Beckwith whc was also in Washington, that the latter was not disposed to main tain !on~Pr his opposition to Mr. Ewing's removal to Alabama.

The "Letter Dimissory in Canon ical Form" was sent without delay to Bishop Beckwith . Under date, November 4th, 1903, he wrote to Mr . E wing aclmowledgi ng receipt of the same, informing him that his name would be placed on the list of the Clergy of Alabama on this day, and hoping he would "find h imself equal to the responsibilities he had assumed."

Mr. E wing took charge of the Church of the Advent, Sunday, November

j

Samford University Library

),

11

11th, and has been ever s ince fulfilling the duties and " responsibilities" of th<> Rectorship, with entire sat isfaction to us and the congregation.

We supposed, and ssuredly had good reason to suppose, that all t rouble with the Bishop was at an end, so far as the due settlement of the Rev. Mr. Ewing as our Rector was concerned. In J anuary las t , the Bishop visited our Parish and confirmed a class. While in the city, be was called on by Mr. Ewing, and offered enter tainment by a member of this Vestry. He had nothing to complain of in the measure of courtesy extended him on the oocasion of his visit.

II.

May lOth, 1904, some days after the adjournment of the recent Diocesan Council, which our Rector attended, and where our Parish was represented by a full lay delegation, Mr. E wing received a letter from the Rev. Dr . Cobbs, Secretary of the Council, the purpor t of which was that Mr. Ewing could not be enrolled as Rector of the Church of the Ad vent, because at the date of his election, October 27th, 1903, the Bishop claimed not to have fur­nisbed evidence to this Vestr y that he was a " qualified clergyman." The BiElJ.op's memorandum showed, wrote Dr. Cobbs, that such evidence had been furnished by him, Novem ber 4th, or 5th. ·

A few days later, the Bishop's position was made known to the Vestry in a com munication received from him, which was : That be would decline to per mit the enrollmen t of Mr. E wing as Rector of the Church of the Ad\·en t, until the Vestry should again elect Mr. Ewing to the rectorship o f this Church, and not ify him (the Bishop) of t heir action.

The Vestry met on May 24th, the Senior Warden by request of :VIr. Ewing presiding at this meeting, a nd unanimously resolved, after reciting at some leng th their reasons for so doing, that they had al ready done every­thlng required of them by the Canons in the election of Mr. Ewing, and that the Bishop's contention for s trict compliance with Title 2, Canon 3, Sections 1, 2 and 3, was not, in their opinion, made in good faith. We believe that these resolutions were forced upon us; t hat we were amply justified in adopting them, and that no fair-minded man will take a different view of the matter, having given the following summary of facts careful and un­biased consideration:

It will be recalled that we first elected Mr. E wing in August, .1903, and gave the Bishop notice of t he election. Upon his reminding us that we had not proceeded in a ccordance with the requirement of Section 1, Canon 3, Title 2- that the election of a Rector must be preceded by nomination, and that, a fter nomina tion and before election, "sufficien t evidence in writing" must be had from the Bishop that the nominee is ''a qualified clergyman of this Church"-we promptly a nnulled said election, by nominat­ing Mr. E wing on September 21s t ; immediately informed the Bishop of what we had done, and asked for the necessary certi ficate of qualifica t ion. September 27th, Bishop Beckwith promised, without condition, or any manner of reservation, to give us the said cer tificate at once. October 17th, not having fulfilled his promise, he wrote letters, hereinbefore quoted, to Bishop Bratton and to Mr. Ewing, in which he stated that the Vestry were extremely anxious to have Mr. E wing called to the Rectorship of the Church of the Advent; that he had had a "full, free, and franl< conference with the Vestry;" that " they wanted no more than he wanted, and he wanted

Samford University Library

,

12

rw mor"' Umn thvy .wanted:" tbat .. he tboroaabiJ uadenUod U... .-u. n.•n flOW, nnl'l lllf!T tho roulhly uDdf!f'ltOOCI btm;.. tlaat lie wu ~ • ~ u th~+ n~v Mr P.wlna lato the Hlocete of Alabama " U. _,. " be

" 11 lfiYttn • llll t" r dlmluory In "canonical form:" ud tbat wltb tbe V-'17 hn t 1! ''K"II" !l'llr the wholt' around.'' Ooe of tb .. lettei'J, be It retDelll­

l..-.r d, '~'•• dlrtar ·~ hy a mttmbtr of the V•tl'1, ud all of tbeaa bore tiM alr.naturr. ur th• fkmlor Warden alon• wltb tbe Blabop'a, Tbe ... un VeRI'1

111 1 li urowl,.,! ,. of t hr.m ' "rf IJOOn afte r th•y were wrlttea. Had we DOt ben 111 th• " I• U• rw "au rfklr.nt fl \ l•lenrfl In 'l'' rlllna" fnJm the Blabop, tbat to bll • uo" lrn1n• 111111 l.wll,.r" t h•, Rftv. Mr. Ewln1 wu a qualified elerumaa of

fll l"'f 1141tl to IM't P.lfl<' tNI to the Rectorshlp or tbe Cbureb of "'''' 11111 fu ll oonaent to proceed to eleetloa, ~

'!:!I'd 011 '1• I~ (ntrr dulffiJID')' UUI USII'd by 8/sltop 8ratt011 br tM IISIIII/

11t 111111 I ur Cannn 3. Tltlo 2. doe~~ not r~ulre that tbe "aulfleleDt • ih1rnc 11 In wrltlnJt'' ru rnlt~hr.cl by the Ul11bop aball be ID any partleular

I 11d1r 1Ja!s Can ll lff3}' N bt a11y fonr~, $0 10111 as It d«lafYS, ilf f•w wonls or "'· d:1 t y cr ~tly, t/:Qithi' III'IDif lfOIIIUfl'rtl'd lor a rtetorsJrlp ill A/abalfll(l is "II qwU(fiN

~'71' 11 o/ tltlJ rku"dt," to tl:l BisJo.op's ht,dtdJt a ltd lwlil/. Hod 111'11101 1M ril/fl lo u ­m, ,:-,, -.us It r.« t:n assumptiott COMpllltd by cltoriltlbl' fa/Ut ilf tlw ltoltor Qlll/ foir d«<hhfr

ttl tlu lliV;:>p tlu!, bJ t~ wrub:,t of til# lrt, rs abovtl q110tl'd, lw Utt11tdl'd to ftJffll tlw pt'OIIfiu ~r. ~, t us on S#fUtr:blr :J'ltlll-brtrlfdl'd to /11.r11Wt rlw nifkiiCI wltod aslc«J for as far b«lc

S,pt,r.Mr 2 I st!-lr.undr.! lo rt.~iw tl" "''r' fonr~, o/1,,. all tllat ltDd oce~~rnd b«IIWII luM "' u , l st rlt p wuA.s, of sfttbrr dowtt olfJ Slndi'q liS a ~liM statnt"ll of t•sdiiiiOIIy

1 1 , mea! "A'('rat of'"' Rt~v. Ortl11cy Eu{nz?

\\'Ill It llfl IIIIIUCcl!t•••l that on ()(oto!Mlr 17th, Blahop Beckwith eould DOt It \n lnt•ndrd '" " tlf.) thllt Mr. Jo:wln• waa a qualified clerumao, becauM ltfl t •d rfltu&e•n tu clnuht lhiU aur h wu )lr. Jo:wlns'• atatua before tbe meetJDI nf lhfl 11 I IJIItl HIAIIIIhiiJ Unmmlttet-. ()(•tuber 23dT He bad DO re&IOD wlaat-0\ • r 111 •lflu llt thAt •wh " '"• Mr. Ewln1f• atatua. and eYei'J reuoD to know nnf. '" II• '•• tlatal l'lll"h It tl tHIIlflt!tlonably wa~t. He had ret"elYed a letter from l ll•ht•l• llrAII•m urutM ''"' ~· (k'tobctr 3d. r@rtlf)'IDS that Mr. ICwlas wu "a l'r•'1ll) IN 111 K•iOd ' " '""" " In the I>IO<·~ rlf Ml•t.lppl," and tbat bJ Blabop 'lmuon hu "'" Rl'r."t•h ld • • "a quallrtf.ld r.leruman." He bad, u alreadJ IHA"f'c'l, v.hll• In J•• kaon, II .• 8(!1•t~ml~r 29th. approaebed tbe ReY. Oeorp ,. II r-rl11, II U . Pr t.lt!nt of thP. l'll• lu lppl StandlDI Committee, wltb tbe t1Ut"allnn " llr llarrt•. • ·hat would you baYe done. bad llr. biDS applied 1' ''"for a l111tcr dlmluorr tn AlabamaT" and bad 10ttea the nplJ, ' ' I would " J loll~ttly ha\'f! tch"" lt. " Ue ba•l no eauM to doubt tJae 8004 R&Ddlaa

n I QU 1Uicatlou Ill! a t'!l ~':~)'man of tM Ru. Mr. I:WIDI: for eauee dlcl DOt r'l•t t thn (Jal uf l r. Jo:wl n«'• flr11t election to tbe Jt.c:tonblp ot tiM \ th nt f'tum:h1 hlllllta ndlnl ln the DloceM of Ma.t.tppl WM u ,- u 11w

d 11 nr. :If Mususlppl. If Blabop BeelnrltJa ba\'tq ''Mud r H'tm• afft'd1111 Mr t:wtna·• eharader u a cJeruaau, aD4 belq r.&l7 ,._ l'f 11 d br tbnm, bad lltlen d lt!pOMd to d•l falriJ wltb tbla V•trJ aa4 wWI

h tt111h15, II~ 'llluUid al Onct', M fon ~- lft)l. laaYe .. t lal- Ia f'Ontmuulntlon .. llb th• MlMIMlppl 8tandlq Oota_.U.. ... ....,_. "t1ntbnr 11'""' W'al or wu noc llD7 au'bltaoc. to ta.. ..W ......_ He ._ ouiUI ! I•J lbl11 \ 'e.ll)' ol Mr. Ewl..-. aoaai..UO. .........., U.. ... M Nlttll1 ta\ 1ott•n a ll nH!ded hatonaaUoD fro. t1ae omo.n e1 t111e Ill nl ••

ndlnt OommlttM wl tbla twn(J·Mr 1aoan. If • .,...._ ... Ud ..,.

Samford University Library

13

neteat ~. Bteltop BeckWith alaaply c1»u 10 a•mf d.ubl ron min~ th .. qullftc:atloa aad sooct alandlna u a c1~110 man, In a ncl&bbotln&; dl • u1 KeY. llr. Bwlnc. who will be found to •Patro\c and dr.f nd hb mufW! In plt'adlq aucb proft!Med doubt by W1l.J' of Ju•tUicatlon of h!A rallur 1o flamt•h tbe " eYiclence In wrttJns:· u ked for by t hl \' tr, StltJtl!ml r tiel . 111111 h blaa unconcllllonally prom lied. ~l•teal bt!r ~7th 1' .

Wft bad no remedy to com l)ftl rumpllanc:-a • 1Ut our tt'QU t, " h n • Alt" t for the Ol1bop'1 ~rtlfleat~ If be failed tu romt•l)' •lth our r~u t ,. h• u ll wa11 hie duty to do 10. he .... I~Ct /<~~tt¥r ,.·itbt '14 10 tdt~ ltd.c ~ t( " t1i11rw 011 /tis pan to 011r ,,ba,.,sslflttrt.

l.et dfatlncllon be f'learly ma de. bet ween th Ulfl hn&l'l canonh 1 riJI'.: to

d~llne to ree~lve In hl1 OIO<'f!l'e a cl••r•u•man "hn •lhl not ltrln,; •lth him " leUt'r dlmluoriln a c~rt.aln fo rm, ancl t h•• llls huJI'K ditty '" I'NIU> 1u tt ' t' a d fl reyman·• qu~llCir':u ton and aood BIAn•tlng, If, a a mau .. r ur fAll, hn l.., uttllltfled and In lood elandln c In th~ l>rO<'m~e of his c'tlnonlt> '' tt'1!1dott llh•lmt• J~kwlth mlaht well have declined to NM!eh«) t r. t:•·lng In thlil Ul•te , •lith. oul a tettu of trus ter ln the fo rm 11uu~ t~l hy th~ C'ano n Ho diJ'CIInln£, hr would have been clearly within hla lawful r•r~ruKath'l. Antl "'"ll ha•l th l~tter ~n preaented to h im In thf! uaual fnrrn, h ntiKht h"'" drelln 1 to

ac~JU It ror elx months. or until lut·h t lrnc u an In'' tlg tlon hunltutrd In thr. lllocese of Ml• ln lppl upon his dt>mancl ha•l l.een c urna•lt•too

Rut . In bealtatlna afte r a ~oabl~ tlmo, to c fl rtlty tu ua tlallt Mr ":"lrllc was a qualified clerl)•man or t hll Churrh, IIJIIC'II h htR OO)'nlld Qlletillon hi Rtatlll ), Blabop ~kwltb wu jul ll)' ll&hl~ 111 r.cntnarf'! for fa llur tu JK'rfunn hi.- f'anonl<'al duty, and ror unwarrallh!tl &BI"-' r'illun ,. t IILJOII Mr. l!~lnR'~-'

<'haracter u a cltrl)'man.

It Bishop Beckwith htJd the rl1bt to lnsiBt, urach r Tiel•• :!, ,~,.,wu 1. thttt Mr. Ewlnl mul l be recularly tranat«>rt("(l frum Mlll&IMIIIJII tu ,\ 1 lmna • hc•f•Jr•

he (Ill shop Beckwith) could C~'rtlfy to u" Mr. t:• lnlc'li rauallflr~ll .. u u A

t•lergyman, tbua enabiiDI ua to proceed tn clr!C't Inn : unduuhlcNII)' he Ius 1110

rls ht to ln1l1t, that any c le rJymao. any• hrm,, wanted fur tb" ItO! tnlllhh• ur their church by any Veetry In thla l>toc• • na111H be r • 111larly tra n!if~rr· J to

this Dloceae, before he Ia e lected to a R4M·tol'llhlp •·tthha II A un..-11) IIIICh cu1 • tnterprelatlon of tbe Alabama Canon wer~ I''"IIJ(JIIlN'OilJj tu a dt'JCr !

Plainly &ad empbatleallr. It Hlah OJI lk!ckYdth did n o t , t o furnl~th

u ldence In wrlllnc tbat Mr. Ewln~~t wa a qualified " ' rgyman. ooforc hi!! third election to tbe Rectorahlp or our Pari h: lhf!U w tb flllt nt. that tlrm J or C&Don S, Title 2. <»Dfen a preropthe upon thr IJillho&•, b a hcd cbBt preroptiYe: and to the extent, tbat tho ld tlota of th~ u ld ' anon nd 'ntle bu In Ylew the protection of V trl and Con,;rea.atlona, lUi nl(Julrn· mat wu amply met by t.bll \"eAtry, Ia tbal w waltt"d till nlahop llraHon hAd ctYeD Mr. Bwlq a letter dlaaiMorr In the rqular form OOfnr el t h11r him • tblrd UDHt: banns In aahad Blabop IJoeockwlrh'• .-nuw • tatl!mttnt to lll•hoJt Bratton: ••Jt you c:aa ... your way eJqr to ~~tlve ,.,, •:w1n1 th IMter dlml•· •n" Ia auaonleal form, I will welcome blm Into thb ut ", 101t hbti tunh"r dat...,..t Ia wrttJq to llr . .Bwtaa.-"Tbe momttnt IIIJ!bop lln~ttoo ran l ft'n 11M tbe lettM dlmlelor7 ID eaaocaleal form, I will w loom,. )OU Into tbl• Uk•· ........

Samford University Library

14

after Bishop Bratton wrote the letter dimissory in "canonical" form. This letter was written, as we have already pointed out, in Washington, where Bishop Bratton and Bishop Beckwith wer~ together, attending a Missionary Conference. As stated by him in a telegram to the Vestry, dated October 23d, 1903, Bishop Beckwith knew at once from Bishop Bratton of the action of the :\1ississippi Standing Committee, and he could not have failed to know at once that Bishop Bratton had written the. letter dimissory. Why, then, did he not send us the "certificate" at once, being fully aware, as he was, of our anxiety that Mr. Ewing should take charge of our Parish at the earliest pos­sible moment, and knowing, as he did, that the only obstacle in the way bad heen removed ?-if he was of the opinion that the "certificate" was necessary to a valid election, after the exhaustive conference between him and this Vestry, October 16th, and tile writzng- on his part of the letters of•October I 7th?

On December 26th, more than three months after we had first asked for the "certificate; " more than two months after the conference of October 16th, and more than two months after Bishop Bratton wrote the "Canonical" letter dimissory, Bishop Beckwith wrote to the ·vestry as fol­lows: "From the failure of the Vestry of the Church of the Advent to send me Canonical notice that an election has been held to fill the vacant Rector­ship of the Church of the Advent, Birmingham, I conclude that my acceptance o~ the Letter Dimissory into this Diocese of the Rev. Quincy Ewing was not 1 egarded by them as sufficient certificate of the fact that he is a qualified clergyman of the Church; and that they are, therefore, waiting for me to send said certificate, as required by the Canons of the Diocese of Alabama. I oeg hereby to certify to your Vestry that the Rev. Quincy Ewing is a qualified clergyman of the Church."

This, more than seven weeks after he had written to Mr. Ewing, November ·lth: " I hope you will find yourself equal to the responsibilities you have as­sumed!" Comment would seem to be unnecessary, but we may pause here to ;nqnire, if it is possible that the Bishop intended to express the hope, that :\ir . Ewing would find himself equal to the responsibilities of simple canonical residence, at larg-e, without specific duty assigned, in the Diocese of Alabama? --and to point out that evidently the Bishop did not consider it necessary for the "certificate" to be in any particular form. If his acceptance of Mr. Ew­:ng's letter dimissory was sufficient "evidence in writing" as to Mr. Ewing's qualification as a clergyman, why was not his readiness declared in writing, October 17th, to welcome Mr. Ewing in the Diocese of Alabama, the moment snch a letter should be given, also sufficient evidence that he considered Mr. Ewing a qualified clergyman, the said letter being given? Why was it not evidence on which this Vestry could lawfully and regularly proceed to elect ::\1 r. Ewing, October 27th?

Not until May 14th, 1904, did Bishop Beckwith by word or syllable, written or spoken, intimate to Mr. Ewing that he-the Bishop-regarded his election as Rector of the Church of the Advent as invalid or irregular. Was this fair treat­ment of a clergyman of the Diocese, who, since coming in:to it, had dealt gen­Prously with the Bishop, and extended him every courtesy? Mr. Ewing at­tended a session of the Diocesan Council in Tuskaloosa, Wednesday, May :.!rd ; met there both the Bishop and the Secretary of the Council, and by neither of them was he informed that his status there was not that of the llector of the Advent Parish. Nor was this information g-IVen by the Bishop, directly 01

Samford University Library

15

indirectly, to any one of the five members of this Vestry who 'were present at the Council as delegates.

We are reliably informed, and do here state as a fact, t hat several clergy­men now serving as Rectors of parishes in this Diocese, called to their r~c­

torships during the administration of Bishop Beckwith, were not elected and cal~ed in strict compliance with Sections 1, 2 and 3, of Canon 3, Title 2. Yet th~ Bishop has permitted and ordered their regular enrollment as Rectors of the parishes in which they are serving. The Bishop was reminded of t his fact by our Rector in the following written s tatement, May 23rd, 1904:-"1 would call your attention to the fact, that the requirements of Sections 1, 2 and 3, of Canon 3, Title 2, were not met in the case of several clergymen who have become Rectors of parishes in this Diocese during the past twelve months. The validity of their rectorships, I understand, you are not disposed to question."

Of this reminder the Bishop appeared to have taken no note, in his reply to Mr. Ewing, dated May 24th, 1904.

It is already a part of this record, that Bishop Beckwith did in J anuary, 1904, v isit our Parish and confirm a class presented to h im by Mr . E wing, thus clearly confessing Mr. Ewing's right to present to h im such a class in t.he Church of the Advent. He has by several communica tions addressed to Mr. Ewing, between November 4th, 1903, and May 14th, 1904, recognized him as being lawfully in charge of this church. Did the Bishop suppose that he was violating a canon of the Diocese in so recognizing Mr. Ewing? It would be interesting to learn what Mr. Ewing's status in relation to the Church of the Advent was by the Bishop supposed to be, and on what was based Mr. Ewing's lawful right to have charge of this Church, between the da tes above

-mentioned. For Section 1 of Canon 3, Title 2, which requires that before electing a Rector a Vestry must have procured from the Bishop sufficien t evidence in writing that the person nominated is a qualified clergyman, lays down this same procedure as necessary to be gone through with by a vestry in secun'ng for their pan'sh a Pn'est-in-charge. In other words, t he same Section of the same Canon and Title· on which Bishop Beckwith relied in his contention that Mr. Ewing's rectorsh ip of the Church of the Advent was invalid, would compel him to asser t t hat, for more than six months, Mr. Ewing had been unlawfully Priest-in-charge of the Church of t he Advent; and to admit that he knew of, a nd not only passively condoned, but actively sanctioned, this unlawful relat ionship between a clergyman and a parish in this Diocese. Is the Bishop prepared to make such an asser tion and admission! !

Monday, June 6th, 1904, this Vestry met and for the fourth time elected Mr. Ewing to the Rectorship of the Church of t he Advent, after adopting certain resolutions which explain this action, and are here copied :

"Birmingham, Ala., June 6th, 1904. "Whereas, This Vestry at a meeting held May 24th, 1904, to take action on

a communication from the Bishop calling in question the regularity of the election of Rev. Quincy Ewing as Rector of our Parish, October 27th, 1903, did resolve that we had done all that we were required by the Canons of the Diocese to do, to Insure the legallty and regularity of the aforesaid election of Mr. Ewing- reciting our reasons for so resolving; and did make known to the Bishop our action at the said meeting, May 24th ; and,

Samford University Library

-;-"'11-------r.aus uno -

10

''Whereas, The Bishop stil l declines to order the enrollment of Rev. Mr. Ewing as Rector of our Parish, on the ground that he had not at the elate or :'llr. Ewing's election, October 27th, 1903, fumished evidence in writing to tlli>· Vestry that he was a qualified cler gyman; and,

"Whereas, 1 n a communication addressed to our Senior Warden by the Scnetary of the Council, it is stated by the said Secretary that he h without discTetion in the matter, and cannot, unless so directed by the Bishop, enroll ;\II'. Ewing in the Journal of the Diocese as Rector of the Church of the \d\·ent:

"Therefore, In order to remoYe from the Secretary the obstacle which prevents him from enrolling Mr. Ewing as Rector of the Church of the Advent, and to avoid further strife and dissension as between ourselves and the Uishop (which it was never our will to bring about);

''Be it Resolved, (1) That we proc:eed at once to go through the form of again electing :\l r. Ewing to the Rectorship of our Parish ; and,

"Be it Resolved, (2) That this action in again electing ;\lr. Ewing is positively and emphatically no admission on our part, that we question for one moment the legality and regularity of his election, October 27th, 1903, but bon the contrary taken with full assurance on the part of this Vestry, t~nnnimously, that the said election, October 27th, was in all respects legal 8ltd regular, and that the validity of Mr. Ewing's acts as Rector of our Parish, since November 4th, 1903, is on no ground open to doubt."

We thin!< we have shown beyond question that the Bishop did furnish us sufficient eYidence in writing to meet the requirements of Section 1, Canon 3, Title 2, ll'~fore :\lr. Ewing's election. the third time, October 27th. But, if any shaclowly technicality is relied on to the conclusion, that such evidence was not furnished by the Bishop prior to the above-mentioned date, there rPm::tins not even the shadow of a technicality with which to repel the con­tention, that he ought to have furnish ed it prior to the said date; and when it was fumished it properly related back in legal effect to the lime when it should have been furnished. /Ve are safe in saying that no intelligent court in the land would take issue with this proposition.

At this date, June 9th, 1904, the Bishop has been notified in due <·anonical form of :.rr. Ewing's fourth election as Rector of the Ad,·ent Parish.

\Ve conclude our statement with the hope, that we ha\'e now exhausted the chapters of a very disagreeable experience, entirely unsought and u n~n tici pated by us.

\\'. T. ARCllER, S~-;cv.

SIGNED:

R. II. PEARSO::\, SJ·::'-IJOR WAR]) J•:;o..-,

ROBERT JEMISON, )l'NIOR \\'.\ JWE;o..-,

s. E. 1'IIOMPSON, TRI•:.\S.

E. l\1. TUTWILER, RUFUS :--1. RHODES, E. P. RIGGS, S.-\..i.\IUEL E. GREE::\E, CHARLES ROBERTS, ROBT. A. TERRELL, ]. B. COBBS, H. K. 1\liLNER, JOliN V. COE,

Samford University Library