Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1892-05-11
On Sunday, is the Aim Of the MethO-
dist Conference.
TELEGRAMS SENT THE PRESIDENT
And the Two Houses Of Congress Expressing the
Desire Of the Conference Many Of the Dele
gates Desire TO be Elected Bishops--A
Long Discussion on Proposition.

pected to report to-day, but the COM
| mittee 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 Epis-
copacy will probably come about Thurs
day or Friday of this week.
The fight over the editorial charge of
| the Ce1nidL Advocate at st. Louis is
growing very interesting. 1t lies be-
| tween DIR. Mason, OF ST. Louis; DR..
Breeder Maston, OF st. Louis; DIR.
Bowman Young, OF Kansas City; DR..
Creighton, OF the Nebraska Wesleyan
University.
DR.. Curtis, OF Chicago, and DR.. Maj
field, of Omaha, are candidates for the
! position held by DIR. Stowe, OF Cincin-
natl, agent Of the book concern. Some
very energetic wire pulling is going on
along the lines, the minutes are be-
coming voluminous and full hour
every morning is consumed in reading
and correcting them.
The order of the day was the report
of the Committee on Constitution, and
everybody expected that the food gates
OF eloquence would be thrown wide
open. DIR. Buckley moved that mas
much as Bishop Merrill was chairman
Of the Constitution Committee he be re-
quested to explain the changes suggest
ed by the report.
DIR. Neeley was opposed to the idea OF
permitting any Of the Bishops to speak.
Even explanations, he said, were some
! times very strong argument.
| Dr. Miley, OF Drew Seminary said:
81 am surprised that DIR. Neeley should
| make such a speech as that which he
are afraid to let or Bishops speak upon
the topics that come before the body.
DR.. Buckley took the floor and argued
yehemently for the motion TO permit
Bishop Merrill to speak. He referred
10 the former action OF the Conference
ON similar occasions. There were two
J diseases that broke out in general con-
ference. One was bishophobia, sort
! OF natural fear of bishops. The other
was bishophobomania, daughter and
: 8pYiaFsel an Intense. desire 70 be
elected to the eplscopacy. He
hoped that neither of those
would 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 was bad state
OF things il the church had come to
such state that the supreme officers OF
the denomination could not be given
opportunity TO speak in the Conference
upon important subjects. The resolu-
tion giving Bishop Merrill the privileges
OF explaining the report on the consti
tuition was carried. The rules were
suspended here, however, and the Com
mittee on the Columbian Exposition
was called for. The report declared
strongly against Sunday opening.
In closing the report said: Better
that the Columbian Exposition never be
opened at all than that the gates be
opened on Sunday" The committee
heartily favored the appropriation of
s., 900, 900 of government funds pro-
vided that the gates be closed on Sun
day, but if the gates were TO be open on
the Sabbath then the Conference was
asked to oppose the appropriation. The
committee recommended that tele-
gram bearing the sentiments OF the re-
port be sent AT once TO the President OF
the United States and 20 Congress. Sew
eral vigorous speeches were made favor
ing the resolution. The preamble and
resolutions were endorsed but were re-
committed for revision. The committee
was instructed to send the proposed
telegram to Washington. The Confer
ence then took up the report Of the
committee on Constitution.
The report Of the Committee on Con-
stitution 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 are unconstitutional.
This is combatted as II is held that this
would compel all acts OF the General
conference to be reviewed By the annual
conference.
DR.. J. NJ. Buckley held that the re-
strictive rules were not all that be-
longed to the constitution. II that
were the case the General Conference
could annihilate itself by a majority OF
one.
DIR. Buckley held, however, that the
plan OF admitting lay delegates was
never part OF the constitution but 1t
was endorsed by the restrictive rules. 1t
was the work OF the General Con-
ference. But the serious dangers TO
which other speakers had referred re-
lating to the rights OF the laymen to sit
in the Conference did not exist. Their
rights were secure even II they had
been admitted by constitutional amend
ment. The restrictive rules guaranteed
them their seats in the Conference.
DR.. Hughey, of st. Louis, held that
the plan of lay representation had
! never been part Of the constitution,
and he was glad that it had never been.
! He hoped that no such abortion as that
plan should ever be ingrafted into the
constitution of the Methodist Episcopal
Church. IL was unfair and unjust TO
the laymen. He wanted 10 see a more
equitable plan adopted.
Mr.. Field, of Philadelphia, the first
layman TO speak On the subject, then
took took the floor. BE said that the
constitution commission bad kept its
work wonderfully secret. They had
retired to the classic shades Of Chau-
tauqua and then to the more quiet
shades OF indianapolis, and finally they
| had come before the conference with a
prodiEious big black book that looked
| ike the ark Of the covenant Egreat
| lauahterl and wanted the conference TO
make these radical changes IN the con-
stitution without sufficient ttime for con-
sideration.
Mr.. Field, therefore, N sa that the