The author considers a problem of translations of bishops as it is presented in the «Opinions of Eparchial Bishops» of 1905–1906. In the synodal time, frequent translations of bishops became one of the cornerstones of the state church policy. At the same time, such practices contradict the nature of pastoral care and are strictly forbidden by the canons. This problem was recognised by the episcopate. The rotation issue was mentioned in 18 responses, but only 15 of them provided some substantive comments. The authors of all these 15 reviews opposed the translations. The issue is most thoroughly examined in the reviews of Bishop Vladimir (Sokolovsky-Avtonomov) of Ekaterinburg, Metropolitan Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky) of Moscow, Bishop Demetrius (Sambikin) of Kazan (expressing the opinion of Prof. I. S. Berdnikov), and Exarch of Georgia Nicholas (Nalimov), who opined from the Georgian Church. The issue under study also took a significant place in the responses of Bishop Simeon (Pokrovsky) of Ekaterinoslav, Bishop Stephan (Arkhangelskiy) of Mogilev, Bishop Peter (Drugov) of Smolensk, Bishop Lavrenty (Nekrasov) of Tula, as well as Archbishop Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Finland, and others. The article divides their arguments into three groups: canonical, moral-pastoral, and practical; and considers them from the point of view of the Holy Tradition. Some differences are identified in the understanding of the Apostolic Rule 14, which is ambiguously interpreted by both new and ancient canonists. Also, the article refers to the statutes and practices of other Churches, in particular the Church of Constantinople. It is noted, that the desire of the Hierarchy to establish the irremovability of the bishop is connected with other transformations anticipated: the establishment of metropolitan districts, the election of the bishop, the abolition of differences in the status of dioceses and various awards, and the increasing the number of dioceses. The importance of the considered reviews confirmed the fact that they were taken into account in the definitions of the Local Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia in 1918, which established the non-removability of the bishop, except in extraordinary cases. These definitions served as the basis for a similar provision in the modern statutes of the Russian Orthodox Church. In conclusion, the significance of the studied responses has been emphasized, and assumptions have been made about the reasons other hierarchs did not find it necessary to speak out on such an urgent problem of the Church.