The Forrest City times., 1892-05-13
MAY DWELL TOGETHER.
Methodist Union Broached at the Omshs
 Conference.


 OMAHA, May I2.-It is quite probable fiat before the present session of the Methodist general conference adjourns the Methodist church will. in the words of the stump speaker. know no North and no South An effort to bring the church North and South together is be- ing made. and communication has al- ready been opened with the officers of the church South by the committee on the state of the church, to whom res olution to that effect was offered by Dr. King of New Yoik and passed.
 Yesterday session was presided over by Bishop Fitzgerald of Minneapolis. Devotional exercises were conducted by Dr. R. B. Hamlin of Central Pennsyl- vania.
 The committee on episcopacy, to whom was referred the question whether more bishops are needed, re- ported that they have not yet been able to solve the problem and were given more time The fact is the sub-com- mittee has not agreed and it is hinted cannot agree without the help of the bishops
 Another hard fight is on over the editorship of the Advocate at St. Louis, It is about conceded that Dr. Creighton, of the Wesleyan University at Lincoln, stands first in the list of candidates The special order of the day, the re- port of the Constitutional committee, was called up at 10 o'clock. Immedi- ately there was confusion. Dr. Buck ley asked the conference to allow Bishop Merrill to speak on the ques- ton Ia matter prohibited by the rules).
 Dr. Medley opposed it and thought the conference could not afford to lay down precedent and allow the bishops to speak and thus use their influence on the floor in the interest of legislation.
 Dr. Myley of New York thought that the bishop should be allowed to speak If such thing is to imperil the good of the church, then do away with the rule. Dr. Kynett of the Iowa con- ference also favored the motion. Dr. l Buckley again secured the floor and made an extended humorous speech. The conference placed itself on record as unequivocally.opposed to the opening of the worlds fair on Sunday. The report of the Committee on Con stitution was then taken up and con- sidered by paragraphs, Dr. Medley talk | ing the floor to explain the first sec | ton The first declaration was that l the first three sections of the present | discipline are constitutional. This is com bated, as it is held that this would | compel all acts of the general | conference to be reviewed by the annual conference. Dr. Little of Central Illinois, Dr. Leonard of | Ohio and Dr. Curtis of Chicago dis ! cussed the matter in the negative. | They held that portions of the alleged | constitution are merely statutory laws,
 and not constitutional provisions. Un- der such holding the laymen legally l could not hold a seat in the conference. | They are here by suffrance only. Dr. Butte of Detroit was opposed to the report for the reason that the def
 milton of the constitution was not, in his opinion, an adequate and proper interpretation. Dr. kynett of Iowa
 raised the point that if the report is
 not adopted, then the lay delegates are
 not a part of this conference. The re- port causing this discussion is this: l The present constitution Of tho delegated l General Conference is the document drawn up | and adopted by the General Conference of | 1868 but modified since that time i'll l cordance with the specifications and restric- | tions of the original document and is now n- cluded in paragraphs n to 6I, inclusive, in the l discipline for lsss excepting the statement as l to the definite Der of delegates provided s- .,lzY,. | within the power of the General Conference
 under the permission Of the second restrictive | rules.
 Dr. Myley believed the general con- | ference had the power to fix the repre-
 sentation of laymen. as the people vote on amendments and not on their word
 ing.
 Dr. Buckley denied that the plan of l the lay delegation was part of the
 constitution, but affirmed that they
 are in the conference solely through | legislative acts. He refuted Dr. Ky
 nett's views by quoting resolution he l offered in 1872.
 1 Dr. Sargant of Indiana said that if the paragraph was not a part of the constitution, then this body was ille- gally constituted.
 John Fields of Philadelphia offered resolution postponing the further consideration of the report until the
 next general conference in order to
 give the people of the church an oppor- tunity to canvass and discuss the mat 1 ter thoroughly. He made a strong
 plea for his resolution and was heartily | applauded
 The substitute was voted down, as
 was also motion to lay the first part. on the table and take up the second part.