Morning journal and courier., 1888-05-05
STILL pIsCUssIrG WOMAN.
The ConferrIng MethOdIsIs Cannot
 eide as to Her Eligibility aa DelesaI

The ConferrIng MethOdIsIs Cannot De
 eide as to Her Eligibility as Delegate.
 NEW YORK, May 4.-The order of the day
 in the Methodist conference, continued from
 yesterday, was the debate on the report of
 the committee on the eligibility of women as
 lay delegates to the conference. The debate
 was opened by the Rev. Dr. A. s. Leonard
 of the Cincinnati conference, who began by
 saying he had received 8 number of anony-
 mous letters warning him not to speak in
 favor of admitting women. He was strong
 advocate of the admission of women. Re
 plying 10 Dr. Buckley's speech of yesterday
 he cited the laws of the church and argued
 that they favored the women's side of the
 case He said that certain insinuations in
 the address were surprising. Women have
 been regarded laymen from the beginning
 They were allowed to vote in the lay confer
 ence for delegates and if they are entitled to
 vote they are entitled to seats. It was un-
 derstood in 1872, when it was agreed to ad :
 init lay delegates to the general conference,
 that the door was opened for the admission
 of women. Dr. Leonard closed by saying that if women were not to be recognized
 they should not be allowed to vote for the
 election of lay delegates.
 The Rev. John Miley, presidential the Drew
 
 ference, spoke against the admission of wo- men, He said if the laws of the church were properly interpreted they would prove that women are not eligible, and then besides no one wanted them in the general conference. If the question of the admission of women were submitted to a vote of the women in the church nine out of ten would vote against the admission of women delegates. Dr. Day, of New York, next took the floor. He thought the whole argument was caused by the difficulty in obtaining the proper definition of the word "laymen." He thought that the substitution of women in some cases would be an improvement. His speech was an eloquent one and in it he de- nied the right of women to have @ voice in the conference.
 General S. H. Hurst, of Ohio, was the next speaker. He manfully championed the rights of women. He dwelt at length on the report of the committee that decided that the admission of women would be unconsti- tutional. He claimed that the law of the conference of 1868 stated that the word ''laym referred to all members of the church not members of the annual confer ence therefore, the general said, when the women were elected by their own confer egatss they had IS good right to participate in the arguments of the conference as any man in the house.
 Professor O. J. Little of the Syracuse uni versity, member of the Philadelphia con
 ference, said he did not want any woman to assist him in debates. Some people, he said, wanted to see the miracle of the garden of Eden worked over again and have woman step out from our sides while we slept. (Much ylaughter which was promptly sup pressed.) The professor concluded by saying that if the constitutional 1awiof the church is observed women cannot have a voice in the conference.
 Rev. Dr. Rathweiter, of the Central Ger man Cincinnati conference, next took the floor. He said he did not see by what right the women could claim A voice in the confer ence.
 Dr. Nicely of the Philadelphia conference offered resolution that we submit to the annual conference the proposition to amend l the second restrictive rule by adding the words tand said delegates may be men or women." Rev. John Graham, of Troy, ops posed the admission of women.z Leslie M. Shaw, of Des Moines, ..s favored the
 wosnans cause & by opposing the committee's report in toto Rev. Dr. L. R. Fiske, president of Albion college, Michigan,
 supported the women by critioising the re- port of the committee.
 Governor Lounsbury, of Connecticut,