The New era. [volume] ([Portsmouth, Va.]) 1845-1847, 1846-12-08

iavorite proceeding, of giving his constr uc,on ar
interpretation Of thing that he may dcnounre it,
1t is not true--csnnnt w. understand the differ.
ence between having no lao. prescribing the kin
nf evidence To he taken in a trial. and haying one
| requiring that certain kind of evidence shall
he taken2 In the first case, the whole is lel, tn
! the direction of the court in the last case tbere
is no discretion. III W. were correct in his rem.
lesentatiun then the law of the Methodist EMS
copal Church would require us To admit the
testimony ct colnred persons bu, instead of that,
the Whole question is left tn the judgment, and
discretion of the preacher. and the commitee by
wnom the trial is 10 be conducted. So that they
may in those places North. where the public opn
ion and usage allow of it, if they choose. admit it,
and In those places in the middle. and South,
where public opinion and usage are against it.
they can reject it as most assuredly they ,oiH do.
| Let II be remembered, that this had been the ex
act state of the matter. from the origin of the
church until 1910, and the whole design of the
resolution. for which voted, was to place things
back just where thev had aloaus been except
during that interval of four years from 1910 TO 4f.
| The practice of the church has always been the
same, before, and since.
In the Christian Advocate of June 8, 1916, l.
gave the following reasons for voting.-not TO
| admit the testimony of cOlured persons, as w.
! says-but that there he no la,c on The subject,
and that 1T be left 10 the Judgment of the church,
! in the place of trial
| |. The occasion which called forth the resou-
'ion of 1910, had ceased.
<. That believe IL Ia be the WiSest course, in
| a country situated as ours is, with sentiments SD
opposite in The different sections of the country
TO have no law on the subject
o. The resolution was perfectly useless. the
practice of the church being the same, since as
before.
4 That it was not question which the South
ern delegates themselves considered important
in 1874 many said they cared nothing about it,.
AS, therefore, the resolution did no good any,
where, and did harm in some places, [ voted to
take ii away.
said the Southern delegates in lS44 did not
think this matter of importance and gave as
reasons for the opinion
|. Their own declarations in private
< The fact that no one made any opposition
10 IL except, simply To vote in the negative
Not speech was made against il, and will it be
bcliered, that the whoie South suffered mpa
sure so hateful as w. represents this To be. to
pass. and not man lifted his roice against IL?
Such statement would be Islander upon the
Southern members.
3. Some of the Southern men, of whose South
ern opinions and feelings, one doubts who
knows anything about the matter, voted as did
on this question; and have not heard, that any
one has been reckless To call them abolition
lists for it. Such as Rev b. M Drake, w. Gum,
and l.. Fowler
now come to what w. processes to regret so
much. w. says "Mr L. publishes a letter rather
excupatory in its character which. regret TO saw
contains three palpabe mistakes, errors, or what
ever else they may be called hut which seems
necessary to make out his case' Now, the first
g error " in this statement is, that these seem TO
he necessary TO make out my case they are of
very ttftie consequence To the main point, my let
ter was written To establish, any unprecedented
mind will see, ona re perusa of the letter; but tri-
vial though they BEL must test w 'salegation con
corning them. w. proceeds :. his first mistake
Is IN attrihuting language to the Rev J. Early
while IN Northampton, which never uttered
| am informed, by several of the must respectable
gentleman of that County, that this accusation
against Mr.. F.. is utterly nntrue.' Indeed and
how do we, or the citizens of Accomac know
what opportunity those gentlemen had 10 kno,u
what Mr.. f.. said or what is the north of IS
endorsement of their respectabiiuy? But sup
pose II all to be as W. represents it; what then 2
1t is question between the gentlemen who wrote
TO me. the statements given by me- and those who
gave w. his information, neither of us having
been there. Why may not pronounce the counter
statement of w. a "papable mistake 20
q" The second mistake occurs in stating that an
| attempt 10 reconsider the resolution of Dr. Few
relative to negro testimony, and above referred to-
failed by lie vote. 1t failed by vote of 76 to
50: Journal General Conference, 1910. page
lu9.' Very well! now look pages 81 and
80. where VIM. a. Smiths motion to reconsider,
and amend DR.. Few's resolution, failed by a
tie rOte Of SO TO 60" I had simply said, ga
subsequent attempt 10 reconsider the resolution
also . failed by lie vote" Did say this was
the only attempt to reconsider it, which failed e?
(See my letter of June Sd. 1886 There were
several different attempt to reconsider IT, w
was too eager 10 find error tn look we'll w
prnceeds,) The third error occurs in saving
that Messrs. Gnnn. Fowler. ID. NJ Drake, and
'' others" of the Southern delegates who acted
throughout with the South, in every measure
deemed Southern and important, voted as he did
! There were no I" others" Of the character de
scrihed as Southern, who voted with Mr.. T..
upon this qucstion-then why say so?'' Now,
! let il he remembered that the word "ofheys' is not
at all important TO my Argument; whether there
were three only, than three, il equally sus
taIns my statement; that ''sOme of the Southern
delegates themselves voted as did" But what
are the facts in the case There weie three Of
! the Phadel phla'delegaies and two from New Jer.
sey. who voted with the South in all the contested
! questions between the North and the South, du-
ring The General Conference, as far as | now re-
collect or have consulted the Journal They
voted with the Soulh in the cases of Bishop
Andrew, and Mr.. Harding; on the Resolutions
offered by Messrs. Scer and Sargent, see pages
| On and b; on the motion To lay the table, the
| recommendations of the Bishops, concerning the
case Of Bishop Andrew, &C. !; and they signed the
protest ct the minority On all these questions
the North and South divided, and The delegates
| a51ve referred to, voted with The South. They
declined, II is true. To sign the declaration Of the
! Southern delegates, which led TO the division Of
the church inasmuch the statements therein
contained, did not apply to their Con ferences :;
and as they were opposed to the division Of the
church; IN every thing else they acted with The
South, so that the public meeting held in Norfolk
Va soon after the adjournment Of the General
Conference, IN distinct resolution. warmly ap.