Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-05-11
INTERL0PING LAYMEN
Hold Seats in the Conference Only on
Clerical Sufferance.
IT'S AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.
Methodists Are 0pposed$o the Worlds Fair
if Open on Sunday.
AFRAID OF THE BISHOPS INFLUENCE

mas cast gloom over the MetnOQlst COnler-
ence that most of the delegates seem deter
mined to shake of. Bishop Fitzgerald pre-
sided to-day.
1t seems to be the prevailing opinion
among the lay delegates this morning that
there will be no Bishops elected at this ses-
sion. The Committee on Episcopacy was
expected to report to-day, but the commit
tee will not be ready, on 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
come about Thursday or Friday of this
week.
The fight over the editorial chair of the
Central Christian advocate at St. Louis is
growing very interesting. 1t lies between
DR.. Mason, of St. Louis; DR.. Breeder
Masten, of ST. Louis; DR.. Bowman Young,
of Kansas City; DR.. Creighton, of the
Nebraska Wesleyan University; Dr. Curtis,
of Chicago, and Dr. Maffield, of Omaha.
A Day Spent on the Constitution.
The order of the day was report of the
Committee on Constitution. DR.. Buckley
moved that, inasmuch as Bishop Merrill
was Chairman of the Constitution Commit
tee, he be requested to explain the changes
suggested by the report Dr. Neely was
opposed to the idea of permitting any of
the Bishops to speak. Even explanations
| were sometimes very strong arguments. DR..
| Miley, of Drew Seminary, said:
lam surprised that Dr. Neely should make
| such a speech that which he has just
| made. Is ii possible that we are afraid to
let our bishops speak upon the topics that
| come before this body? Are the interests
and doctrines in danger when bishop takes
| the floor? 1 hope Bishop Merrill will be per-
| mitted to speak on this subject
DR.. Buckley took the floor and argued
vehemently for the motion to permit Bishop
Merrill to speak. He referred to the former
action of the Conference on similar occa-
sions. There were two diseases that break
out in general conference. One was bish-
ophobia, sort of an unnatural fear of bish-
ops. The other was bishophomania laugh
ter and applause], an intense desire to be
elected to the episcopacy.
The Bishops Friends Carry the Day.:
He hoped neither of these wonld so warp
the minds of the brethren that they would
not have confidence in the impartiality of
the Bishops to such an extent as to exclude
them from the floor 1t is sad state of
things if the Church has come to such a state
that the supreme officers of the denomina-
tion could not be given an 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 Com
mittee on the Columbian Exposition was
called for. The report declared strongly
do In oil cIno ha
port said:
"Better that the Columbian Exposition
never be opened at ALL than that the gates
be opened on Sunday"
The committee heartily favored the ap.
preparation of S. 900, 900 of Government
funds, provided that the gates be closed on
Sunday; but if the gates are to be open on
that day, then the con ference is asked to op-
pose the appropriation. The committee rec
commended that u telegram bearing the SEN
timents of the report be sent at once to the
President of the United States and to Con-
gress.
Several vigorous speeches were made fav-
oring the resolution Tine preamble and
resolutions were Endorsed, but were recon-
mitted for revision. The committee was
instructed to send the proposed kilograms
to Washington.
Laymen's Right to Seats Questioned.
The report of the Committee on Constitu-
tion was considered by paragraphs, DR.
Neeley taking the floor to explain the first
section. The first declaration was that the
first three sections of the present discipline
was unconstitutional. This is combatted,
as it is held that this would compel all acts
of the General Conference to be reviewed
by the Annual Conference. DR. Little, of
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 statu-
tory laws, and not constitutional provisions.
Under such holding the laymen legally |
could not hold a seat in the conference. |
They are here by sufferance only.
DR.. j. M. Buckley, after several speeches
pro and con. held that the restrictive rules |
were not all that belonged to the constitu-
tion. If that were the case, the General |
Conference could annihilate itself by a |
majority vote of one DR.. Buckley held, |
however, that the plan of admitting lay |
delegates was never part of the constitu-
tion, but it was endorsed by the restrictive |
rules. 1t was the work of the General Con- |
ference.
The Laymen's Rights are Secure.
The serious dangers to which other
speakers had referred, relating to the rights |
of the laymen to sit in the conference, did |
not exist. Their rights are secure, even if
they had not been admitted by constitu-
tional amendment. He continued:
Dr. Kynett now seems to hold that the
lapse Of years has taken this power out of |
the hands OF the General Conference. do
not agree with him. The lapse of years does
not. change historic facts. The General
Conference can change the plan of lay cleo
toral representation, but cannot abolish it,
because the plan has been recognized by the
restrictive rules of the Church, which are a
part of the constitution. l would die at the
or ka haf I nj of
lay representation was part of the consti-
tuition, but 1 also hold that the plan has
been indorsed by the constitution in the re-
strictive rules. lApplause.]
Dr. Hughey, of st. Louis, held that the
plan of lay representation had never been a
part Of the constitution, and he was glad it
had never been. He hoped no such plan
should ever be ingrafted into the constitu-
tion of the Methodist Episcopal Church.
1t is unfair and unjust to the laymen. He
wanted to see more equitable plan
adopted.
Layman's Motion Defeated.
Mr.. Field, of Philadelphia, the first lay
man to speak on the subject, said the Con-
stitution Commission had kept it's work
secret. They had retired to
the classic shades of Chautauqua, and then
to the more quiet shades of Indianapolis
and finally they had come before the con-
ference with a prodigious big black book
that looked like the ark of the covenant
[great laughter and applausel and wanted
the conference to make these radical
changes in the constitution without suffi-
cent time for consideration. Mr. Field, |
moved that the whole discussion
of changes in the constitution be postponed |
until the next General Conference. His |
motion was put and lost
DR. Hartzel and several others ca1led for |