The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1888-06-07

but as medSuIo VI OOhiPiO-'N
method of settling the question as out
lined above was decided upon.
For several and good reasons it was
thought women should not claim, and that
il isnot desirable for them to exercise, this
privilege. True, they do the major part
of the duty and work necessary to sustain
church organization. 1t is through them
the major part of the necessary
funds are raised to carry on the churches,
and those social features are inaugurated
that lend to church life rs charm and con-
tribut, SO materially to its success. But
should not their duties and responsibilities
stop there? Is not that tle full measure
of the work designed for them? Does
not that round out and com 2lete their
sphere of usefulness in the church? lu
churc or Eanzations, as now constituted
are not all the offices filled by men, and 10
not this in conformity with the teachings
of holy writ, that indicate that women
SlOu u uOJ DE uedru III ulOOtihs5
men should be the spokesman of the
church?
Rutoutside of this consideration of
past procedure and custom, and aside
from the bearing of religious precedent
as established 10 the days of the apostles
would not the admission OF
women delegates in the great general
conclaves of representatives of the Sec
ond most powerful religious denomina-
ton of the union, have bad etfec5
as establishing rule and hxlag
precedent that would work injury to
matters social and produce chaos in the
politics of the country? Woman suffrage
ia thing it to be desired in this ma
ton. It might not work SO much injury
in the north, but would be disastrous in
the sou h. The women as a class and as a
vast body do not wish this right at the
hands of the government. There are a
few among them, those of masculine
tastes, and those VIII }, from choice or be-
cause of fate's decree, are compelled to
face the world alone and singly work out
their betterment in their peculiar station,
who desire this distinction or demand
this right But the claim does not
come up from tae mothers of
the land or from those who
in their homes WELD potent
influence and can trust their husbands,
brothers and friends to do battle in the
world for right and justice. This latter
class would not exercise the right to vote
had they it bestowed upon them; and the
nation can, in thai capacity, do without
the services of the former.
But one point in this connection is most
important. The drift of sentiment and
wish for the past few years has been
towards reuniting of the wings of the
Methodist church, north and south, join
ing together of brothers in a faith, that
have for too long time been disunited
That sentiment and wish Is yearly drawing
nearer happy realization. Why, then
introduce now discordant elements? Why
inject church ruling that will inevitably
keep for years longer these two sections
apart? The south will not submit
to woman suffrage in the church, and, as
it is neither necessary nor desirable, why
should the church north adopt it and re-
tard Methodist union for years to come ?
We do not think the verdict of the cleo
tions in 1890 will be for women to abdicate
the sphere in which for centuries they
have so nobly maintained the dignity of
womanhood, with so much honor to them
elves and benefit to the church.