Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-05-15
BISHOPS COUNCIL.
WHO SHALL CONSULT AS 10 THE AP.
P0IxTMEEr OF PREACHERS
Report as TO the Methodist General Con-
ference Expenses-Papers
Presented, &c., &C.

The Conference met at A. NJ
Bishop Wilson in the chair.
| Rev. s. NJ. Hosmer, Of Alabama,
conducted the opening religious exer.
cises. after which Bishop Wilson re-
signed the chair to Bishop Granbery.
CONFERENCES TO UNITE.
| The Committee on Boundaries re-
ported in favor Of authorizing the st.
Louis and Southwest Missouri Con-
ferences to unite If 1t shall be the wish
OF these Conferences to do so. The
report was adopted.
MEXICAN MISSION.
The same committee reported on the
boundaries OF the Mexican Mission Con-
ference, which report was adopted.
The names of places marking the
boundary were in Spanish. Our readers
will excuse their OMISSION
ABOUT APPOINTMENTS.
The report OF the Committee on Epis-
copacy on certain papers referred to
them asking that no appointment shall
be made at an Annual Conference BY ths
bishops without consultation OF the
presiding elders was taken up. The
report advises that no legislation be had
on the subject.
DR.. Kelley, Of Tennessee, said:
There are only two Of the grest bodies Of
Methodism that have the appointments
made by the bishops-Northern and
Southern Methodists. Bishop Asbury
knew the preachers better than they
knew each other. Now the preachers
are well known to each other. They
are not so well known to the bishop.
The presiding elders know all the
preachers. The laymen now are ad-
mitted to membership in the Conferences.
There is a growing tendency on the part
Of the laymen to seek to influence or
control the appointments made by the
bishop. They are more inclined to take
the matter Of advising the bishop con-
cernipg appointments away from the
presiding elders. We should dignity
the presiding eldership. We should
say to the Church that the presiding
elder must be consulted in the making
Of the appointments Of the preachers.
If lsymen wish to give advice let them
approach the bishop, except in extreme
circumstances, through their presiding
elders. We should pause here and in
sist that the presiding elders shall be
consulted in making appointments. He
therefore opposed the adoption Of the
report Of the committee.
DR.. Whitehead, Of Virginia, opposed
the report of the committee on the
ground that bishops sometimes made
what he called "pocket appoint
ments appointments made by the
bishop without due consultation with
the elders, and not made known to the
council until they are read out to the
Conference. lie had known bishop
also to make an appointment directly
opposite TO what was advised by the
ELDERS. He thought the Church ought
to require that the presiding elders be
heard respecting the appointments.
DIR. West, of Alabama, held that the
bishops were required by the law o.
the Church to make the appointments
His understanding was that the bishop
appoint presiding elders to assist then
in experimenting the work aud gath
ering the necessary information respect
ing preachers and places, that the ap-
pointments might be wisely and judi
ciously made. He did not think it
wrong for the bishop to receive and act
upon information furnished by laynen.
lie did not think it wrong, however,
for laymen to give the bishop informa.
ton and advice, if he requests it, re-
spectipg the appointment. He be-
lieved that the custom Of the bishops
was to consult these sources Of infor-
nation. He did not believe that the
bishops made appointments blindly. He
could not see the necessity of q bishops
laboring half the night with board of
presiding elders when he has already
all the information necessary to guide
him in making an appointment. He
thought the committee properly re-
ported "no legislation necessary on
this subject"
Mr.. +. W. John, of Alabama, de-
precated the fact that any one should
think it necessary to bar the approach |
of a lsyman to the presence of a
bishop when he seeks an interview for |
the purpose Of giving to his chief pastor
information concerning the wants OF the |
work in that part Of the Church repre-
sented by him. lie thought it often
necessary that laymen as we'll as pre-
siding elders should have the ear of |
the bishop for the purpose Of giving in.
formation and advice about the ap- |
pointments.
Chief.Justice Jackson, of Georgia.
said As q lsyman l desired to be
quiet. He then gave an instance in
which he had tried TO influence an ap-
pointment. He said the bishop sent
the man he did not want, but he soon
learned that the bishop had sent tie
man that was needed. The objections
bic man had been their pastor only
few months when the church was
blessed with a great revival, the bene.
fits of which touched his own heart.
lie then wrote to Bishop Pierce. con-
Tossing that he had once interfered, or
tried to interfere, with the lawful pre-
negatives Of the bishops Of the Church.
He asked the Bishops forgiveness, and
promised in the future to be good boy
and not meddle with the work that did
not belong to him.
Judge Jackson continued to advocate
in very able speech the report Of the
committee. At the conclusion Of his
speech there were cries of "Question
question :"
SPECIAL ORDER.
The Chair here announced that the
order Of the day-the report Of the
Committee ON Finance--was before the
Conference.
On motion, the order of the day was
postponed and the question Of appoint
ments was resumed.
n~ MeEarr.x of Naphv.1ln f.vnroI 1