New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-05-13
SOME METHODIST LEGISLAIoM

Tho late DIR. Daniel Curry. for many years
one of the Wisest men in the COUNCILS Vi INC
Methodist Episcopal Church, was won't 10 say,
not without sadness we imagine lha1 thae
Church had no statesmen. he probably wished
tn he understood as speaking in the present
tense for surely he could scarcely have been
willing to reflect upon the fathers," as they
are reverentiaIly termed by the speakers IN the
General Conference now in session. Accept
inc the Book of Discipline as al epitome OF the
wisdom of the lawgivers Of the Church from
tbe time of the founders down to the present.
there can he no doubt that it represents large
amount Of sagacty as well as earnestncss ana
nio4v Yet many who have followed the do
inss Of the Conference during the last TWO
weeks with judicial discrimination can scarcely
have helped wondering at times that the apph-
cation of so much intelligence on simple ques-
lions of government should produce such I'M
perfect results. 1t was not until tho elgh'h
dav of the Conference that the last OF the cases
involving the right to seats in the DouS was
decided and since then half dozen memorials
and resolutions have been introduced loohinR
to the amendment of the Church laws, so as TO
avoid hereafter the difficulties in which the
contests involved the Conference. In all In
stances the fundamental difficulty was pract-
coII1 The samoa want of clearness in the law,
or of harmony between its parts. Either inc
low was ambiguous. or it was equivocal, ap-
parently establishing principle yet 1aiilns 10
proyide for It's full, uncmbarrassed operation
in the Church polity. Hence the conference
(Which is unique in that it is vested WIN
judicial as well as legislative functlons) Is
periodically called upon TO construe the laws IL
makes and then hastily to entertain PROPOSE
tiops to amend the laws in conformity win the
construction given in a particular case Such
LEGISLATION is not the fruit of wise statesman
ship.
An instance in point Is furnished by the case
which occupied almost all the time of the Con-
fersnce during It's first week. There can
scarcely be doubt that the equity at least, Of
female representation in the General Confer
ence flows out Of the legislation which intro
duoed lay delegation. Women are permitted
in express terms to fiji certain offices in the
Church and thereby acquire the right to sit in
the Quarterly Conferences Thence they can
90 and have gone, to the lay electoral con-
ference where they can vote, and have voted
for lay delegates to the General Conference.
From this state of facts it would seem that the
bclped TO create was a natural, lawful and
proper inference to be overthrow only by
restriction in the organic law of the Ch'pch.
This restriction was found by implication
(harmoniously we believe. with accepted max
inns of construction in an appeal to facts whloh
disclosed the intent Of the lawmakers. Flalniy
the sitting Of women in the General Conference
was not contemplated by the Conferences CT
1858 and 1872, and therefore the Old reS'rlc-
ton was not removed. 1t was nice case at
law with so many arguments on both SIDES that
It was not surprising that the law-maklng
Judges came near to interpreting the law 80
as to cOncede the privilege
Now that tho matter is no longer in dispute
before this Conference, it IS not harmful to
suggest that if women are to be admitted the
law as it stands confers the privilege moro
unambiguousy than the amendment which is
tn be submitted to vote in the Annual Con-
ferences. AL that seems necessary is to decide,
as matter Of fact, that the word laymen' IS
to be understood in its generic sense and the
| thing is done. DR.. Neelys amendment was
eagerly accepted by many as an easy way cut
Of somewhat embarrassing dilemma. In
accepting il u delegate did not necessarily put
himself on record as opposed to the admission
of women; only the advocates of admission
disclosed their real sentiments fully and UNI
| equiyocaly. But suppose the amendment is
adopted and becomes the law Of the Church
| what then VIII not a law which says that an
Annual Conference shall be represented by two
lay delegates "who may be men or women"
need to he construed again by appeal to the
facts of the recent debate? Suppose an Flee
toral Conference should send one man and one
woman. Of course there is now no difference
of opinion as to the intent Of this General Con-
ference. but why use ambiguous language?
Our stat ute books are full Of laws whose
| language and construction are disgracefui to
our intelligence. The choice spirits Of great
Church ought not TO subject It's statutes TO the
same charge