Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1846-05-15
METHODIST PRoTESTANTS.

Cincinnati Herald
a select committee.
Mr.. De Ford moved to amend by referring
to the Judiciary. 1t was a constitutional
question and therefore belonged TO the Judi
ciary.
Rev. l.. II. Reese offered a resolution to
the effect that this should be referred to a
committee to be created, to whom all docll-
ments on the subject of slavery should be re-
ferred.
Mr.. Brownson accepted the resolution of
Mr.. Reese in lieu of the motion he had first
made.
Mr.. De Ford said that the appointment of
such a committee would be an anomaly. The
constitution authorized no such committee.
The way to get at this subject, and the only
way was to get the primary conferences TO
the number of two-thirds 10 move on the sub
Ject, and then propose an alteration. He
moved that the resolution of Mr.. Brownson
be laid on the table and the petition be refer
red to Judiciary.
Mr.. w. Ii. Collins said that in his opin-
ion the petition should be referred TO the Ju.
dietary with instructions to examine into the
number of abolitionists in the church, and
then report both in regard 10 that and also in
regard to the power of the Conference relating
to the subject. He did not think that the
number of abolitionists were very large, and
he agreed with MIR. De Ford in regard to the
constitutional question.
Mr.. L~eishley of Virginia, supported the
motion to refer 10 a separate committee. In
this manner only would the abolition breth-
rem be treated with proper respect, and a
thorough investigation be given to this sub
ject.
Mr.. Wesley Starr Of Baltimore, hoped that
the committee would be appointed. There
was enough of talent and piety to discuss the
subject in a proper manner. Petitioners have
a right to be respectfully heard.
Rev. J.R. Williams of Maryland, said that
in his opinion the Conference had no power
to appoint a committee to prepare business
for it, upon which they had no right to act.
Besides this was a moral question and was
provided for by the Constitution. 1t was
above the power Of the Conference to make
laws on such a subject. The only manner
in which they could entertain it was as a
question Of discipline in a particular case. If
it was a question at all, it was a judicial
question and belonged to the Judiciary Com
mittee.
Mr.. D. c. Carson was opposed to laying
on the table, because this was the third time
the question had come up, and he had heard
the same speeches, and he was afraid If the
question was laid on the table he should hear
the same again. Besides the one who had
made the longest speech against referring to
a special committee, and had expressed the
strongest opinion of the unconstitutionality
OF the petitioners request was on the commit
tee on Judiciary.
Mr.. Whitaker Of North Carolina, hoped
the motion would not pass. This subject
was one which had already broken some of
the bands of the union. He did hope that
the Methodist Protestant Church Of the whole
United States would not present another in
stance Of broken ties. He thought that the
best method of allaying the excitement, was
to let every argument which the aboliiionists
could bring forward 6e presented to the Con-
ference.
The question was then taken and lost.
Mr.. Kennedy said that if the committee
was granted as a favor, the abolirionists
would rather not have it. They asked it as
a right.
Rev. Mr.. Simm of Maryland, was of the
opinion that the Conference having granted
the right of presentation they should of right
grant them a committee. He was sorry to see
the defiant spirit which seemed to prompt the
last speaker. He thought there was no dis
position TO grant it as a favor, but it was the
sense of the Conference that the petitioners
had a right to a committee.
Rev. l.. r. Reese withdrew his amend
ment, and the question required on the amend
ment of Rev. Mr.. Burns, to the effect that a
committee of five be appointed to whom the
petition from Ohio and all similar petitions
be referred. The amendment prevailed, and
the original resolution, as amended, was then
passed.
Rev. w. II. Collins, of Illinois, moved that
the committee be chosen from the abolition
lists who were members of the Conference.
He had seen that there had been committees
appointed, half of those opposed and half Of
those in favor of abolition, and we had coun-
ter reports in every instance. He hoped that
every argument would be brought out by
this committee, in order that we might have
the latitude and longitude of abolitionism
in the United States. He was no amal9a-
m~ationist.
Rev. Mr.. Burns moved that the resolution
lie on the table.
Rev. Mr.. Whitcield remarked that at the
last General Conference the abolitionists had
complained that they were in a slave State,
and that they were not fairly represented in
the committee. He hoped that now when
they were in a free State, the abolitionists
would be permitted to have it all their own
way.
Mr.. Brownron of Michigan, said he recip-
rocated the good feelings of the southern
brethren. He was an out and out abolitionist.
The motion to lay on the table was with
drawn, and the resolution was passed.
Committee-Rev. Mr.. Taylor, Rev. w.
~ " - n 4