The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1844-05-25
Methodist Episcopal Conference.

Conference, came again before 1t on Thursday.
On the day previous, although it was evidently
matter uppermost in the minds Of all, it had not
laid the deep hold on the house discemable yester-
day. A large concourse of strangers attended in
the gallery, and some precaution was necessary to
prevent the inconvenient "pressure from without"
from be ing felt inside the limits of the bar, or that
portion OF the body Of the ediice appropriated to
the members of Conference.
As soon as Bishop Hedding took the presidential
seat, a solemn silence prevailed throughout the
church, and no other business was attempted than
the order Of the day-the case OF Bishop Andrews
At length, after marked pause,
Or. BANGS, with evident marks of devotion,
took the floor. He had been Che sald) member
OF that Church since lS0S; had been honored every
| year with seat IN the General Coniere nee he
had been at discussions oil great import, carried on
with much spirit-sometmes with bitterness; the
presiding Elder question for instance and OF all
these discuss ions, he never saw carried with
50 much calmnsss as the present, with the eXcep-
ton OF few remarks on both sides yesterday.
This gave him to hope that that discussion would
not terminate in any thing disastrous 10 the church
In taking up the question, he would in the first place
allude to few remarks OF brother from Missls-
sppl; he understood him as saying that the language
in the preamble to the resolution, relative To the
usage of the church, was not true. lie would ask
them was 1t necessary to prove that what
the usage of the church was contrary to its usage
were at one time ready to vote for slave holding
Bishop, and that such nomination was defeated
only by the management OF certain portion of the
Bal limore Conference. For his part he knew Of
such contrvance In 1882 The Baltimore delegates
waited on slave holder and asked him in case he
was nominated would he emancpate his slaves, and
were answered that he could not. That was the
truth OF the matter, land he would ask, was it like
disposition to elect a slave holder, when that an
swer prevented the nomination; and that same
Conference nominated J. o. Andrews, because he
was not then slave holder, and there not
more than dozen votes given by members OF slave
holding States tor his electlon-(A yoice-you are
mistakenly A brother says ! am mistaken; well,
It's certain that the minority in that election were
southern men. and Bishop Andrews never would
have been elected without the votes of northern
members. lie wished to correct statement of his
brother from Virginia. that this agitation against
a slave holding Bishop resulted from aboli-
ton. That was not the fact. 1t was only
demonstration Of the old Methodist feeling agains,
slavery. CA voice" Exactly.'D lie next refer
red to the resolution before them. There were
many things which might dsquality Bishop.
Suppose their beloved Bishop Hedding would de-
clare that all slaveholding was contrary to Chris.
tan principles, that would be an ultra view, and
one for which he should be requested to resign for
he was not the Bishop of part but of the whole
Church, and would not, on account of such views,
be acceptable. Suppose one OF their Bishops, who
was unmarried would go TO the South and marry
a colored woman. (Cries of Order, order; we do
not allow that in the. south, &c2 That, he main
| Il
Bishop.')
The President called order if they did not like
what was said, they should wait their turn to an
swer him.
Dr. BANGS proceeded He would suppose he
went to the North then, and would ask if even
there he did such act would il not disqualify
him! He granted that when Bishop Andrews was
elected, he had no connection with slavery, but by
his marriage he had; he acted impruden'ty x
difference had been made between a Bishop and
Superintendent. He never would abridge them Of
their rights and privileges, nor curta their liberty
of opinion, so long 1t was not dangerous TO the
peace of the Church He never could hold the
opinion that holding slaves, under all circum-
stances, was SIN; yet others did think SO. ln
passing that Resolutions ,hey did not censur .r the
said his act was imMudent, and hoped that they
would not be under the necessity of going further
than requesting HIM to resign, and that the great
head OF the Church would rule all for good-(Se-
veral voices. Amen land that the disastrous
results expected would not take place.
| Mr.. FINLEY-Mr. President
DR.. CAPERs-Slr am told that Dr. Bangs said
Mr. - Mr. President, wish to say-(order
order.)
The PREslDENr-Brotber Finley has the floor
DR.. BANGs-Allow DIR. Capers to explain.
PREsIpENr-lt is not in order; ii you like TO
make motion to here Dr. Capefs, you may. Bro.
Their Finley, so on.
Mr. EARLY-I rise, sir, to make an explanation
DR.. CApERs--I have certainly right to speak on
this subject, and will, whenever can consistently
PREsIDkNT-It is moved that DR.. Capers be per-
mtted to speak.
Mr. FInLEY--I have no objection to give way for
an explanation, but not for "A speech
DIR. CArERs procee ded to say that he was unable
to get there az soon as he wished he did not know
what remarks were made, but was informed that
DR.. Bangs said IN his speech that brother IRON
Baltimore had admitted that deputation of the
| Baltimore Conference had asked Southern man
TO emancipate his slaves, IT nominated as bishop
He CDR. G } never heard that before-It struck
his ear then for the first tlme-never never. He
| did not know that he should then say more but
thought he had right to advert to H.
| PREsIpEsr-Mr Finley has the floor.
MIR F,rLKY said two three having arisen, that he
would not give way to so many explanations.
Dr. sLrckR-Mr. President, rise to ask many per.
sonaes would be permitted in this debate az we have
| heard.
Pnn,rpnSr-If Brother Finley will give way, Brother
Davis wishes TO speak.
MIR DAVIS called the attention of Conference to some
very unjust unfounded and untrue statements made by
Dr. Wynans the day previous The memory some
times fra but he had distinct recollection OF the fac,
alluded to in his imputaon the Baltimore Conference
Mr. Davis went to state conversation that he had
with Dr. Capers being delegated by members OF tho Bal
tmore Conference 10 ascertain DR.. Capers views on
cable for YOU to free yourself from ssvery Dr. g. told
him he was and doomed to be Shareholders it
beyond his power to rid himself Of it. And on learning
the intention nominate him, he declined saying Bishop
Andrews would be better one and disconnected with
slavery. After some further remarks
Dr. CarrRs rose explain something which per
sona interest to himself He denied that distinct propo
ston made to him by the Baltimore delegation to
nominate him II he would emancipate his slaveshe could
recolcct every that he might have had
nor deny that that with Mr. Davis took place. but If the
Baltimore delegation sent brother Davishe forgot 10
hst he was sent by them admitted that the nomina.
ton of Bishop Andrews from Georgia and South Ca
rolina. The position he was placed in was painful one
He entered further into particulars connected with the
election OF Bishop Andrews and his own refusal his be-
ing branded az stealer and how much he felt know
ing that in that conference there many who
garded him how hs had assaulted in the North whilst
not single man found to vndcae that poor abused
name Ie trusted Conference would not think he aspir
ed 10 the nomination although after refusing friends
were SO jealous his election that contrary 10 his ut
Efforts forty given for him and those
not from the South but the West
Mr. WvSASs rose to explain lie always knew brother
Davis TO be exceedingly reacherous Many brothers had
heard the statements he made he would now ask him
Prof DERBir rise, sir to point Of order say that
the direction Of the remarks Of the speaker 20 reflect on
the character of brother they personal and OF
order
derablc noisc1