Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-05-18
THE METHDDISTS.
The Terare Of Gffics Of Bishops the
Subj C. Of Discussion at tbs
ConfarSnces
Joy and Gratiruds Expressed at tho Ban
ishmenI Of Slavery III Brszn-Gsneral
R0utiEe Work Dome.

NEW YORK, My 1.-THE active work
Of the fifteenth Day OF the general Metho-
dist conference began with the report of
the judiciary committee on certain ques-
tons referred TO it touching the organic
Law of the church. Bishop Foss presided.
The ldciary report WAS presented. Ii
WAS in answer to several questions re-
ferred to the committee on changes Of
discipline.
The first question wss, may the discip-
line be SO changed SIS TO authorize the
election of presiding elders at the annual
conferences To this the committee
answered no, as such proceedings would
be in violation of the third restrictive
rule, which leaves such matter solely in
the hands Of the bishops.
Question second was, may the discipline
be SO changed as to give presiding elders
coordinate authority with the bishops In
fixing the appointment OF preachers? No
was the answer to this question also, as
the appointing OF the preachers rested
solely with the bishops themselves.
The third question referred to the ten
ure of bishops Office. 1t WAS, csn the
term Of Office of the bishop be restricted
to term of years? and 1t was also an
swered in the negative as the laws of the
church makes the ofice for life.
The fourth inquiry WAS: Cannot bishops
| be assigned quadrsnnially to the Episco-
psi DISTRICT This was also denied on
the ground that the Episcopal district is
general.
The committee vas unanimous on all
these points except the third, relating to
the tenure OF bishops. A minority re-
port, signed by Eli F. Ritter, M. B.
Reese, John Lacey, W. S. Spears and L.
re. Queat, WAS presented. This report
dissented from
THE VIEWS OF THE MAJORITY
on the first question on the ground that
the third restrictive rule carefully guards
some matters touching the bishops and
their prerogstives, but does not touch the
tenure of office. The dissenters hel1,
therefore, that it is competent for the
General Conference to fix such limit to
the bishops term as in its wisdom may be
deemed best.
For a moment it looked rs If the reports
would sgisate the House for considerable
time, bus DIR. Buckley, by pointed
speech, succeeded in getting both reports
tabled. He held that as the conference
had decided that no speeches over FIVE
minutes would be allowed the matter
could not be thoroughly considered in so
few minutes. His speech and motion
to lay on the table were received with ap-
plAuse.
Ga motion Of Dr.. Swlndell of Phil.del.
phia it WAS decided to have the committee
of episcopacy report on Saturday morn
ing plan Of districting and electing mis-
sionary bishops.
DR.. Qusat OF Central New York asked
permissisn to call the attention Of the
conference to what he called great
event, the Punishment of slavery In Bra
iii. Permission was refused and then he
moved to have the rules suspended in or.
der to move q resolution referring the
matter to special committee expressing
the Joy and gratitude of the conference OF
this event, in which he succeeded amid
great applause.
After much discussion 1t was resolved
to receive no more petitions or motions
until May 81.
A resolution was also resd asking tina,
the committee on episcopacy may no,
make any recommendation for the ap-
pointment of q missionary bishop for Eu'
rope. In support Of the resolution DR..
ASHFORD Of the German conference made 3
short address. Then followed q heated
discussion on the subject Of the election
OF bishops, which resulted In the adop-
ton Of the original report by more than q
rwo-thirds vote.
The remaining time of the days ses-
sion was given up to completing the me-
morisI service begun yesterday.
|