The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-05-11
Attempt to Seal the Mouths Of Bishops Causes
Dr. Buckley to Warn Against Two Diseases,
Bishopphobia and BishOpphObOmsnis.
Lay Representation Also Provokes the
Editor to Speak His Mind Freely.
Text Of the Decision of the Committee of Car
dinals Sustaining Arch bishop Ireand's
Minnesota Educational Arrangement.
TOPICS OF METHODIsTs.



Heated Discussion Over the Committees Re-
port on the Constitution.
OMAHA. Neb., May 1O.-To-d days session
OF the Methodist Episcopal 9uadrennial
conference was interesting. At times the
discussion waxed very warm. DE-. Buckley
was the conspicuous figure In the debate
Bishop Fitzgerald presided at to-days
session and DR.. b. b. Hamlln led in devo-
tional exercises. Chaplain McCabe, assisted
by two of the secretaries formed q very
effective trio. and led the singing. It
seemed to be the prevailing opinion among
the lay delegates this morning that there
would be no bishops elected at this session.
The committee on episcopacy was expected
TO report to-day. but the committee will
not be ready OH account of the fact that
the colored brethren are pulling every
possible string to secure the election of
colored bishop. The final report of the
committee on episcopacy will probably
como about Thursday or Friday of this
week. The fight over the editorial chair
of the Central Advocate. at st. Louis. is
growing very interesting It lies between
Dr.. Masden, of st. Louis; DIR. Bowman
Young, of Kansas City. and DR.. Creighton,
of the Nebraska Wesleyan University. DIR.
Curtis. of Chicago, and DR.. Maxfeld, of
Omaha, are candidates for the position
held by Dr. Stowe, of Cincinnati. agent of
the Book Concern. Some very energetic
wire pulling is going on along the lines. The
minutes are becoming vOluminous, and
full hour every morning is consumed In
reading and correcting them.
The order of the day was the report of
the committee OF constitution, and every
body ex, ected that the tioodgates of elo-
quence would be thrown wide open. DIR.
Buckley moved that inasmuch as Bishop
Merrill was chairman of the constitution
committee he be requested to explain the
changes suggested by the report.
DIR. Neeley was opposed to the idea OF per-
mitting any of the bishops to speak. Even
explanations. he said. were sometimes @
very strong argument.
Dr. Miley, of Drew Seminary, said: II
am surprised that DR.. Neeley should make
such q speech as tha. which he has just
made. !s it possible that we are afraid to
let our bishops speak upon the topics that
come before this bodyf Are the interests
and doctrines in danger when q bishop
takes the fioori hope that Bishop Merrill
will be permitted to speak on this subject"
TWO CONFERENCE DISEASES.
DR.. Buckley took the floor and argued
yebemeutiy for the motion TO permit
Bishop Merrill to speak. He referred to
the former action of the conference on
similar occasions. There were two
diseases. he said, that broke out in a gen.
eral conference. One was b,shopfobia-a
sort of an unnatural fear of bispops; the
other was bishophobOmania laughter and
applause an intense desire to be elected
to the episcOpacy. He hoped that Deither
of these would so warp the minds of the
brethren that they would not have con-
fdence in the impartiality of the bishops
to suoh an extent as to exclude them from
the floor. 1t was a sad state Of things If
the church had come TO such a state that
tho supreme officers of the denomination
could not be given free opportunity to
speak in the conference upon important
subjects.
The resolution giving Bishop Merrill the
privileges of explaining the report on the
constitution was carried.
The rules were suspended here. however.
and the report Of tho committee
on the Columbian exposition was
sss% ssronsy S against Sunday p0's openins In
closing. the report said: Better that the
Columbian exposition never be opened
at all than that the gates be open on Sun
day" The committee heartily favored the
appropriation of S1.0O0.000 of government
funds. provided the gates be closed on
Sunday, but If the gates were 70 be opened
on the sabbath then the conference was
asked to oppose the appropriation. The
bearing the sentiments of the report be
Of on' the a. United G"si States and ''cene to Com
gross. Several vigorous speeches were
preamble and resolutions were indOIsed,
but were recommitted for revision. The
committee was instructed to send the pro-
posed telegram to Washington.
The report of the committee on constitu-
tlOn was considered by paragraphs, DE-.
Dnl nlyrr bn4 4lrA xvalo
section. The first declaration was that the
first three sections of the present Disci pline
are unconstitutional. This is combated,
as 1T rs held that this would compel all
acts of the General Conference to be re-
viewed by the annual conference. DR..
Little, of Central Illinois; Dr. Leonard. of
Ohio. and DR.. Curtis, of Chicago, discussed
the matter In the negative. They held that
portions of the alleged constitution are
merely statutory laws and not constitu-
tiOnal provisions. Under suoh q holding
the laymen legally could not hold seat in
the conference. They are here By sutfrance
only. Dr. Is. II. Potts. of Detroit, was the
next speaker. He was opposed TO the deti-
milton of the constitution presented by the
committee. DIR. Kynette defended the
action OF the committee In q vigorous
speech. Rev. q. T.. Alderman. of Tennes-
see, spoke for five minutes and opposed the
dehnitlon OF the constitution by the COM
mittee.
DIR. BUCKLEY SPEAKS AGAIN.
Dr. j. NJ. Buckley again took the floor.
He epoke with his usual vigor He held
that the restrictive rules were not all that
belonged TO the constitution. Ii that were
the case the General Conference could an.
initiate itself by n majority vote of one.
DR.. Buckley held, however, that the plan
of admitting lay delegates was never o
part of the constitution, but 1t was in
dorsed by the restrictive rules. 1t was the
work OF the General Conference. But the
serIOus dangers, to which other speakers
had referred, relating TO the right of the
lsymen To sit in the conference. did not
exist Their rights were secure even if
they had not been admitted by consti-
tutional amendment. The restrictive rules
guaranteed them their seats in the con-
ference. Dr. Buckley held that DIR.
Kynette had completely changed front
p 1872 He read resolution in
cd led by DR.. Kynette in tho conference
,, which declared that the plan of ad-
mitting laymen could be changed at any
time by the General Conference. "Dr.
Kynette now seems TO hold that the lapse Of
years has taken this power out of the hands
of the General Conference said DIR. Buck
ley. Il do not agree with him. The lapse
OF years does not change historic facts.
The General Conference can change the plan
of lay electora representation, but cannot
abolish IL. because the plan has been recoQ-
~ -. L.