Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-05-21

missionaries in Mexico, eNptehsihS Wv
wish a himself and others that tins Con-
ference should take some ac,ion by which
the Methodisms Of Mexico can be UNIFIED
that the immediate financial effect would
be 10 save 5000 TO the Mission Board;
that renewed persecution OF missionaries 10
Mexico made II probable that his blood
would stain the streets Of a Mexican CITY
before. his letter reached IT'S destination,
ard IL was necessary that the hands oi
missionaries should be strengthened as
much rs possible.
nr. Kelley made strong speech, when
was listened to with profound attention
lie contended that the Methodist Church,
South. and the Methodist Episcopal Cburch
wcIebut two brigades OF one army-they
are not fighting each other. He favored
the confederation proposed by the amend
ment.
DR.. West, Of Alabama. said he was COM
mitted to every thing that looked 10 Chris
tian charity and Christian love. He was
committed to fraternity with all Christians,
not only Methodists. hut OF every name,
but be was opposed 30 the amendment.
and believed that any agreement OF the
kind proposed to be sought by the amend
ment would involve the Church in difficult
remedied by this movement.
Mr.. Shumate, OF Georgia, said he pro-
posed 10 apply DR.. Kelley's speech against
The amendment. lie said the Church.
South. in Mexico with $1,000 united with
the Methodist Episcopal Church North.
with $1,000 would be equivalent to n sur
render Of the weaker 10 the stronger. The
stronger will dictate the future poIity and
policy OF the Church. He strongly opposed
the amendment.
no CONTENDTNG FACTIONS.
Mr.. Hansins, OF Alabama, was I'm SYM
pathy with the views OF the younger MEN,
bcrs Of The Conference and OF his own An
nusl Conference. The amendment wished
TO 90 do away with two Churches OF the
same faith set up in the same community
one against the other. He believed there
should be but one Mcthodlsm In one place
the world over. lie believed the Methodist
Church South bad no business in Illinois,
and the Methodist Church North had no
business in Alabama. The world Il large
enough for u all without our coming in
conflict in any place. He thought the
Churches ought TO come together aud ar
range this matter, so that there shall be an
end oi this waste.
Rev. Mr.. PrOtlsman, Of Missouri, favored
the amendment giNin the Board Of Mis-
siOns the right TO negotiate on this subject.
TIE TIVE not YET COVE.
Rev. MIR. Gardner, Of the Baltimore Con-
ference, was signer OF the amendment.
He did moi consider that the paper looked
Immediately or remotely 10 the organic
union of the Churches North and South.
The signers regard the measure aS one di-
rcctcd 10 the contamination Of a generally
expressed wish OF the Church that there
shall be q more economical Use % men and
money in the missionary work. lie did
not believe that the time bad come for or
ganic union; hut that question is not be-
fore Us. he said. He was not prepared TO
say what The Church 81 the future would
do with the question Of uuicn. fAp?llusc.l
WANDERING FROM THE SUBJECT.
Rev. Mr.. Black, OF Mississippi. SAID it
was important in debate 10 keep the ques-
ton fairly before the mind. He held that
Bishop Kocner and Dr. Winfield had made
speeches on questions not before the body.
There was 70 proposition rejecting on the
mission work, as suggested by Bishop
kecncr c speech, nor OF surrender 10 Zoe,
as might be supposed by the speech OF Dr.
Winfield. He was willing to trust the
Board Of Missions to care for the interests
of the Church in any negotiations between
them and the Mission Board Of the Church,
North. There was already authority given
10 cooperate with the Northern Church in
establishing schools. Why not extend this
10 missionsf II the first was good and de-
eirablc, why not the SecOndt He hoped
tbc Conference, when il came 10 q vote.
IcF,ra 10 tho raa1 9tt1gfinn IIa
made a strong speech in favor Oi the pro-
posed amendment.
A sTEP FORWARD.
Rev. Mr.. Lewis. Of st. Louis, REGARDED
tie proposition as a step in the direction Of
organic union. II the Conference fayOrs
that. let il adopt the measure pending. lie
contcnded that every article in that amend
ment looked not only 10 federation and CO..
operation in missionary work, but to the
ultimate union Of the Churches.
The previous question was ordered.
Dr. McFerrin asked TO be excused from
voting, which was granted.
The vote On the amendment was aYes
81. noes 10G: vote on the original re-
port ayes l05, noes 1i-adOpting the
original report.
MISSION WORK.
DR.. Bennett desired TO ask what had be-
come Of paper presented 10y him ana
adopted by this Conference asking infor-
nation respecting the mission work Of the
Church.
Or. Potter. Of Georgia, said the paper
was lci0re the committee and had been the
subject Of consideration at several Of it,
meetings. The PAPER asked numerous
questions covering a vast field, and il will
take some time yet to prepare the iniorma-
ton desired.
Rev. Mr.. WcScott, Of Illinois, arose TO a
privileged question. He said that II had
been alleged on the floor Of the Conference
that the Church South had had no busi-
ness in Illinois. As the only representa-
i've OF that Conference present he protest.
cd against such statement. The Illinois
Conference was organized without the aid
OF the Church south. OF Its own accord il
sought admission as a body into the Church
south, and was admitted. He was sorry
10 hear il asserted on this floor, IN the face
Of these circumstances, that the Illinois
Conference South now has no business in
Illinois