USA > New York > The Diocese of Central New York; the founding fathers > Part 15
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16
1 In the Messenger, January 10, 1867, there is reference to the founding of the Diocese of Albany. The writer hoped that ultimately there would be in New York a "Grand Province of five dioceses with the senior bishop as Metropolitan."
139
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
as far as is known, appear to have agreed to ignore these suggestions.1
The views of the southern counties made no impression upon the Committee when it reconvened in July at Syracuse. No one, it should be noted, represented the Southern Tier at either Buffalo or Syracuse, and only eight of the fifteen were in attendance at Syracuse. The latter gathering, however, reaffirmed the decisions made at Buffalo and instructed a committee to present the same at Convention, scheduled to meet at Elmira, August 21, 1867. A choral Morning Prayer, the Rev. George M. Hills of Syracuse, officiating, opened this historic meeting. Later and after breakfast, the Bishop and Clergy marched into Trinity Church chanting Laetatus Sum, following which Holy Communion was celebrated. The remainder of the day was quickly spent in routine business and it was not until the next morning that the question of division was brought before the delegates.
Dr. Shelton, speaking for the Committee, briefly reviewed its deliberations and decisions. Then came a statement of the sub-com- mittee appointed at Syracuse. Herein it was reported that the Committee had unanimously arrived at a decision favorable to division for two reasons. First, such a proposal was in accordance with the wish of the diocese and rested upon facts of great weight and importance. "It is not reasonable to expect any one Bishop" to handle a diocese that had doubled in strength since its birth in 1838. But what of the future when the population of the diocese would soar beyond the already staggering number of a million and a half? Moreover, as shown by the State Census of 1865, the ratio of increase "in the ... Church had been more than 52 per cent ... or more than 3 to 1 of any religious denomination." At the same time the value of church property was twice as great as that of any other faith.
The Committee's second reason for advocating division con- sisted of a series of arguments conceived to refute those sponsored by the opponents to division. The most prominent of these was the apprehended difficulty in providing for the support of a bishop. But this, the Committee held, was imaginary when one recalled that the offerings for the previous year, as compared with those of 1840,
1 A study of the Report in relation to the Division of the Diocese, adopted by the southern counties at Bath, May 7, 1867, will well repay any interested person. It is the author's opinion that the Editor of the Messenger was not far afield when in July, 1867, he admitted that the case for these counties was "impressive." In November, the Messenger refers to the idea of an Ithaca See.
140
CENTRAL NEW YORK
were in a proportion of thirty to one. Again, it had been said that it was unfair to promote division so soon after the accession of Bishop Coxe-a contention the Committee affirmed could hardly stand in the face of his repeated calls for division. Finally, it had been argued that division would impair the standard and quality of Episcopal influence. Do those, the Committee asked, who hold such an opinion honestly believe for one moment that if the City of New York were made into a diocese such action would decrease the importance and vitality of that See? And what of the English dioceses, all embraced within an area less than of the State of New York ?
Having thus presented the case for division, the Committee then introduced a series of resolutions favoring division along a line drawn in accordance with the eastern boundaries of Wayne, On- tario, Yates, Schuyler, and Steuben counties, and that the area to the east be declared the new diocese.1 Following which the Con- vention lost no time in proceeding to act upon each resolution in turn. In respect to the first, advocating division, several amend- ments were introduced all of which were lost.2 A vote by orders then followed on that resolution. One hundred of the clergy voted for division as opposed to two negative votes by H. H. Brown and Ferdinand Rogers of Big Flats and Greene respectively. Among the eighty-six parishes there was one divided and nine negative votes, five of which came from Grace, Elmira, St. Peter's, Bain- bridge, Zion, Greene, Trinity, Seneca Falls and St. John's, Ithaca. Oddly enough, therefore, opposition to division came chiefly from portions of the area ultimately to be included within Central New York. The battle for division had been won; Gloria in Excelsis rang throughout Trinity Church.
Greater resistance, however, followed in respect to the second resolution which defined the division. As soon as a motion for adoption had been put, the Rev. John M. Guion of Seneca Falls offered an amendment favoring a line which would follow the, north boundaries of Broome, Tioga, Tompkins, Schuyler, Steuben, and Livingston counties and the western limits of Monroe county. Such a proposal clearly reflected in part the desires of the Southern
1 Steuben seems to have been added after the Buffalo meeting.
2 One of the amendments by E. A. Graham of Grace, Utica, sought to delete Steuben ; another was also lost favoring the plan of the southern coun- ties as was one proposed by Ward Hunt of Grace, Utica, that tied the ques- tion of division to the question of the support of the episcopate in each of the dioceses.
141
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
Tier which if accepted would have left that area within the Dio- cese of Western New York. At the same time it would have allocated Yates, Ontario, Monroe, and Wayne to the new diocese. Supporting Guion was Mr. John A. Collier of Christ Church, Binghamton, who presented resolutions passed by the vestry depre- cating any scheme that would divide the southern counties and petitioning that these be left as a part of Western New York. Later, Mr. Thomas Farrington, of St. Paul's Church, Owego, presented similar resolutions after which the Rev. Orland Wither- spoon of St. James' Church, Buffalo, moved postponement of the original resolutions until the next convention ; the motion was lost. The question-Guion's amendment-was then called for with the following result: clerical votes, twenty-seven in favor, sixty-three opposed ; Lay votes, twenty-two for and forty-seven against.
An analysis of the vote is of interest. The Journal reports the total number of clergy in the Diocese of Western New York at that time as being one hundred and seventy-five, which included the Bishop and six clergymen resident but as yet not received. Of these only one hundred and twenty-three were present of whom one hundred and eleven were entitled to vote. Of the latter but ninety used their franchise ; approximately nineteen per cent abstained for one reason or the other. All but seven of those endorsing Guion's amendment were from Central New York including in addition to the mover such well known clergymen as Walter Ayrault of Ox- ford, Joseph M. Clarke of Syracuse (St. James'), Charles M. Platt of Binghamton (Christ), William Paret of Elmira (Trin- ity), and Albert P. Smith of Cazenovia.1 Those opposed from the same area numbered pastors like Theodore Babcock of Watertown (Trinity), Amos B. Beach of Oswego (Christ), John Brainard of Auburn (St. Peters'), Samuel H. Coxe of Utica (Trinity), Wm. T. Gibson of Oriskany, A. B. Goodrich of Utica (Calvary), George M. Hills of Syracuse (St. Paul's), John W. Payne of Ithaca, E. M. Van Deusen of Utica (Grace) and Jedediah Wilson of
1 Others were W. J. Alger, Paris Hill, H. M. Brown, Big Flats, Joseph Hunter, Guilford, C. T. Kellogg, Elmira, E. Z. Lewis, Norwich, G. F. Mayer, Elmira, T. G. Meachem, Waterville, G. G. Perrine, Aurora, W. Roberts, Windsor, J. A. Robinson, Bainbridge, T. W. Street, Owego, M. E. Wilson, Harpursville, S. F. Jarvis, Utica, and F. Rogers, Greene.
142
CENTRAL NEW YORK
Antwerp.1 As far as the clerical vote was concerned, Dr. Shelton and his committee had fared none too well in Central New York. What might have happened had all the churches in that area been represented and had all voted is not known, though it is conceiv- able the margin of victory in Central New York might have been narrowed.2
But even had the Southern Tier won more clerical votes in that area it would have been defeated. Dr. Shelton's Committee had not merely ignored the representations from this area but had used its own prestige and influence quite well. Witness, for ex- ample, the success it had in the four leading cities of Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Utica. The final vote among the clergy gave the Committee, which probably reflected the Bishop's think- ing, a majority of thirty-six. Nor did the laity lag behind, there being a majority of twenty-five in that order, the vote being twen- ty-two for the Guion motion as opposed to forty-seven against.3 Interestingly enough except for the churches at Palmyra, Branch- port, and Phelps all of the affirmative votes came from Central New York, namely Binghamton (Christ), Harpursville, Windsor, Northville, Bainbridge, Greene, New Berlin, Sherburne, Caze- novia, Waterville, Whitestown, Syracuse (St. James'), Elmira (Grace), Horseheads, Elmira (Trinity), Seneca Falls, Waterloo, Waverly, and Owego. Those in Central New York voting against the Guion motion were Ellicottville, Auburn (St. Peter's), Aurora, Oxford, Watertown (Grace and Trinity), Oneida, Rome, Utica (Calvary, Grace, and Trinity), Fayetteville, Skaneateles, Syra- cuse (St. Paul's), Oswego (Christ and Evangelists), and Ithaca. In a few instances, such as Aurora, Oxford, and Waterloo, there was disagreement between the clergy and laity. Then there were parishes that had no lay delegates but whose clergy supported Guion such as Norwich, Guilford and St. George's, Utica. Among the
1 Wm. M. Beauchamp, Baldwinsville, M. B. Benton, Boonville, J. H. C. Bonte, Oswego, J. Bowman, Fayetteville, L. R. Brewer, Carthage, H. L. M. Clarke, Rome, A. W. Cornell, Homer, R. N. Duff, Skaneateles, H. V. Gard- ner, Oneida, F. Granger, Ellicottville, J. K. Lewis, Syracuse, Wm. L. Lord, Pierrepont Manor, S. K. Miller, Jordan, Robert Parke, Waterloo, A. H. Rogers, Moravia, Wm. Raymond, Cayuga, and R. Todd, Augusta, also voted against the Guion motion.
2 Vacant parishes included those at New Hartford, Candor, Holland Patent, Manlius, and New Berlin.
3 No attempt is made to explain why some did not vote. Certain conjec- tures may be offered, such as not being present when the vote was taken. But the problem is too confused to warrant any definite statement.
143
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
parishes whose laity were there but did not vote were New Hart- ford, Manlius, Clinton, and Fulton.
The loss of the Guion motion foreshadowed the adoption of the line proposed by the Committee. Before the final vote was taken, however, several futile attempts were made to change the line. The Rev. Henry R. Lockwood, of Christ Church, Pittsford, thought the line should be followed to Schuyler county thence easterly along the line of the Southern Tier. Dr. Paret wished to substitute Chemung for Steuben, while Dr. Ayrault wanted Schuyler to be in the new diocese. After these had been disposed of, the Commit- tee's line was adopted without any opposition. Five other resolu- tions were then passed relating to the distribution of existing funds and certain legal aspects incident to division. It was also agreed to request General Convention, provided the Diocese of New York approved, to enact a permissive canon establishing a federated council of the dioceses of the state.1
Only one of the recommendations submitted by the Committee of Fifteen, namely the adoption of the See Principle was not con- sidered. Probably Dr. Hayes was correct when he wrote that it "was laid on the table simply because one or two wanted to speak on it and another debate at that hour was out of the question." Be that as it may the Convention adjourned without much ado so far as the Oneida Convocation's resolutions were concerned. How the representatives of the area interpreted this action is not clear ; there may have been some who were unhappy even though the issue might be brought before Convention in 1868, prior to the formal establishment of the diocese. Nor does one know what injured feelings existed among those of the southern counties. Rightly or wrongly they had honestly staked their future on unity with Buffalo and had lost. But present research has failed in discovering any abiding ill-will. Their future ripened in Central New York and not a trace of a "lost cause" attitude has been found, not even at Binghamton or Elmira.
Probably as the months passed and as the north-south avenues of communications increased in number and efficiency, namely the railroads, interurbans, automobiles, airplanes, and telephones, the attractions of Buffalo disappeared especially to those counties whose
1 These implementing resolutions, prepared by a sub-committee, had been included in the Committee's report.
144
CENTRAL NEW YORK
future was to be within the Diocese of Rochester.1 At the same time the unity and individualism of Central New York became a visible reality. All of which compliments those who in 1868 had fashioned policy so well and lasting. It is difficult to see how, as things shaped themselves, the scheme of the southern counties could have been lasting or that the five eastern counties by themselves could have supported an effective diocese. Bishop Coxe, Drs. Shel- ton, Gibson and others did far better than they knew when they elected to divide the old Diocese of Western New York and to allow Central New York to be guardian of its own destiny.
1 The following may be of interest: "That East and West Line ... which we propose ... traversed [by railroads] both ways seven times each day in the year. That North and South line ... proposed by some is incapable of being traversed at all during certain portions of the year and can never be accomplished without half as many days as the other requires hours. Prac- tically to reach Syracuse or Utica from Chemung or Tioga Counties, the shortest route is through Rochester"; see Report of the Div. of the Diocese, op. cit., p. 13.
145
CHAPTER XIII
MORNING GILDS THE SKIES
The Diocese of Western New York held its Thirty-first Annual Convention at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul's, Buffalo, Wed- nesday, August 19, 1868. Among matters of relative importance to Central New York reference should be made to the admission into Union of St. John's, Auburn; Christ Church, Clayton ; Grace Church, Union Springs; Trinity Church, Boonville; and Christ Church, Forestport. Another item related to the petition of the Onondaga Indians for the continuance of the services of the Church. Supported by Rev. E. M. Van Deusen and Rev. J. M. Clarke of Utica and Syracuse respectively and the Honorable Charles Andrews of Syracuse, the Convention assured the Indians their requests would receive full and ample implementation.
Of greater significance was the pastoral address by the Bishop in which he stated :
When, at a late hour of the evening, I bade you fare- well, a year ago at Elmira, I had no time to speak, ade- quately of the great importance of the work you had there achieved. Let me begin, today, where we left the matter, reminding you of the fact that in erecting a new Diocese, we have taken a step of the utmost importance to the Church and to the people of the State; and that it now remains to press it vigorously to its conclusion.
Whereupon, he urged his listeners to make known to General Convention their desire to become a new diocese and promised that upon the approval of that assembly he would call a Primary Con- vention for the election of a bishop. In the course of these remarks, the Bishop pointedly reminded the Church in Western New York that as yet he had not decided whether he would retain his See at Buffalo or move into the new diocese.
It will be a great trial for me to part with any of you; and I feel that this affectionate sentiment is not altogether unreciprocated. I will wait, then, till it becomes my pain- ful duty to decide such a solemn question.
The following day, as Convention, having passed the required legislation, was nearing its end, the Bishop alluded to the problem once again. With understandable emotion he spoke of his forth-
146
MORNING GILDS THE SKIES
coming separation from a portion of his "beloved flock" and com- mended all to the "guidance and blessings of the Holy Ghost." Whereupon the Gloria in Excelsis was sung and after appropriate prayers for the departed, the Bishop gave his benediction and the historic gathering came to a close. Later that night and in the quiet of his own room he recorded these sentiments in his diary :
The long day's work in Council closed up our business. In the evening, my previous charge and the closing of the original diocese of W.N.Y. It was grand ... As the solemn procession of priests passed away singing, Jersualem the Golden, I wept from deep emotion and felt the memorable sanctity of the hour.
But there was work still to be done. Much of this centered about what had been left undone at Elmira, namely as to where the new diocese was to have its headquarters. Talk along this moot question had followed hard upon the heels of the Elmira meeting. For example, the Utica Herald, November 14, 1867, in reporting the activities of that convention suggested the city's chances of be- coming the See had been injured by the laity who, without apprecia- tion of what the See Principle was, had opposed the same. Although the Herald wrote as one saddened by the outcome, it was quite correct in its analysis of the confused thinking of the lay delegates, especially those of Utica, in reference to the See Principle. But all was not over and the opportunity for a revival of the issue was present in the action taken at Elmira. Here the See resolutions had been laid on the table; they had not been voted down.
In commenting on this action the Messenger, August 6, 1868, fathered its own hope by interpreting the vote as postponing final decision for a year. Thoroughly wedded to the interests of Utica, the editor stoutly defended the See Principle "even if we have to couple the names of Utica and Syracuse." Moreover, he bolstered his argument by reference to the Church Review where recently an attitude was expressed, following closely what Bishop Coxe had stated earlier, championing the view that a bishop's home and see should be in the chief city of a diocese. But what was the first city in Central New York? Clearly, this was a matter of dispute though few seriously thought of places other than Elmira, Ithaca, Syracuse, and Utica. But among the laity, to repeat, the See Prin- ciple was not over important.
Meanwhile and under able direction, the clergy and laity of Syracuse initiated a drive supporting the claims of that community.
147
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
Today the paramount importance of that city is not questioned. But yesterday that preeminence was by no means assured or con- ceded. Convinced, however, that the future marked Syracuse as the center of inland New York, a will was expressed to leave no stone unturned-the new diocese must be at Syracuse! Thus a gathering of local churchmen convened in that city late in Septem- ber, 1868. Due to the influence of the Mayor, Charles Andrews, a communicant of St. Paul's (whose High Altar today bears a memorial to his name), the meeting was held in the City Hall. Presided over by Mr. Andrews, a motion was presented by his friend and fellow parishioner, George Comstock, that was unani- mously adopted. In substance, the diocese was to be named after Syracuse and its bishop was to have his See and home in that city. Then to remove all doubt as to the sincerity and seriousness of the Syracuse group, a sum of twenty thousand dollars was promised for the purchase or construction of a bishop's home. Finally, in a spirit of fealty and love, a warm welcome was extended to Bishop Coxe to make Syracuse his new residence.
These and other facts were in due time relayed to a committee, appointed by the Bishop, whose duty was to prepare all things necessary for the organization of the diocese. Meanwhile at Gen- eral Convention matters were likewise expedited and by October 15, 1868, pertinent legislation had been effected in that Convention, and Bishop Coxe issued the call for a Primary Convention to meet November 10 of the same year at Trinity, Utica. In conjunction with this call he eased tensions somewhat by announcing his decision to remain in the Diocese of Western New York. At the same time it opened the way for considerable speculation as to who the future diocesan would be. Writing in the Messenger, October 29, the editor mentioned as possible candidates the Reverends Theodore Babcock of Watertown, James Rankine of Geneva, Edwin M. Van Deusen of Utica, George Leeds of Baltimore and formerly of Utica, and Frederic Dan Huntington of Boston. In some quar- ters the names of the Rev. George M. Hills of Syracuse and the Rev. Anthony Schuyler of Rochester were mentioned. In reference to all of these, the Bishop kept his mouth sealed. Privately he may have had a candidate but if so he did not reveal the fact.
The Primary Convention convened as summoned. Sixty-six parishes, represented by one hundred and forty-nine lay delegates, were present and all but three of the sixty-four clergymen priv- ileged to attend. The Rev. Ferdinand Rogers, veteran priest at
148
MORNING GILDS THE SKIES
Greene, was chosen President while the Rev. Alfred B. Goodrich of Utica was named Secretary. Under these gentlemen the conven- tion was organized, suitable resolutions and expressions of respect and love for the Bishop were passed, and various committees were appointed including one on the naming of the diocese. Then, in accordance with the constitution, Bishop Coxe, upon invitation, assumed the presidency of the meeting. On the morning following, a celebration of the Holy Communion was held at Grace Church, Utica, with a sermon by the Bishop. The burden of his remarks concerned the principles and considerations Convention should pur- sue in the election of a bishop. One may well imagine how these comments stimulated conversation at the noonday lunch.
But when Convention reconvened in mid-afternoon the time for talking had ended. The long awaited item of business-the election of a bishop-was now in order. Before making nomina- tions, however, all stood silent in prayer following which selected collects and the ever moving, Veni Creator Spiritus, were said. Seventeen names were then presented as candidates. Of these the Rev. E. M. Van Deusen represented the hopes of those who wanted the mantle to rest upon one living within Central New York. His successful pastorate at Grace Church, Utica, and his leadership in diocesan affairs marked him as a popular and strong possibility. Supporting him was the Rev. George M. Hills of St. Paul's, Syra- cuse, who was a "favorite son" but whose name was not presented. Oddly enough another strong prospect was the former rector of Grace Church, Utica, Dr. Leeds, about whom rallied those who wished to have as bishop a man outside of the old diocese of West- ern New York. A third nominee was the Rev. Abram N. Little- john of Long Island, and there were some who thought the Rev. Frederic D. Huntington of Boston was the man of the hour ; others thought well of the Rev. Theodore Babcock of Watertown.
The result of the first ballot showed the relative strength of the candidates. Huntington had but five clerical and three lay votes out of a total of sixty-one and sixty-eight for each order. Dr. Leeds did somewhat better with six and five, while the Rev. Abram N. Littlejohn stood second with eight and eleven respectively. In first place was Dr. Van Deusen who garnered twelve clerical and seven- teen lay votes.1 On the second ballot it was clear that the contest had narrowed itself to Drs. Van Deusen, Leeds, and Littlejohn,
1 At this point Dr. Babcock withdrew his name.
149
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
the vote being seventeen and eighteen, fourteen and fifteen, and twelve and eighteen respectively. The next ballot showed sixteen and twenty for Van Deusen, twenty-two and twenty-two for Leeds, and fourteen and twenty-four for Littlejohn. On the fourth ballot Van Deusen had ten and seventeen as compared with nine- teen and twenty-two for Leeds and twenty-eight and twenty-eight for Littlejohn. On the fifth and last ballot, Littlejohn was chosen bishop by thirty-eight clerical and forty-seven lay votes ; Dr. Leeds having fourteen in each order with Dr. Van Deusen with but six and nine. Whereupon the election was made unanimous and the Gloria in Excelsis was sung. "But I imagine," so Dr. Hayes re- corded, "by no means as heartily as in the same church in 1864." Meanwhile in his diary, Bishop Coxe wrote: "This afternoon after several ballots, Littlejohn was chosen and with much good feeling this choice was made unanimous, I am quite satisfied and I do not see how he can fail to accept."
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.