St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-05-12
A Proposition Presented to
Create Separate Dis
trictS for Bishops.
Colored Brethren Touch on
the Bishop Question in
Good HumOp.
Bishop Merrill Explains the
, > Report Of the Constitu-
ton Commission.


ence to day. After devotional services
the committee OH the centennial of the
general conference of the Methodist
church recommended that special
service be held on thesevening OF May
II as a centennial service; also that Ell
forts be made to collect the facts con-
nected with the conference of 1892, as
the official journal of that conference
was lost. The report was adopted.
A committee was appointed to meet
the delegation to the Presbyterian gem
eral assembly who pass through Omaha
tomorrow on the way to Portland. Or,
and invite them to visit the general con-
terence.
DR.. f. j. Gray, of Pennsylvania, in
| trod uced a resolution to change the
rules so as to give the different boards
| authority to elect the official editors,
secretaries of the auxiliary depart
| ments, superintendent of the book
| concern and other officers usually
| electedby the general conference. He
supported the resolution in very prac-
| teal speech, in which he said, as most
of the. delegates are unknown to ma
| iority..l he thought that the various
boards could elect these officers with
more intelligence and satisfaction to all
| concerned. Referred to the committee
on temporal economy.
q Districts For Bishops.
DR.. Gray also introduced a resolution
| calling upon the committee on eDiSco-
| pacy to consider the ACCESSIBILITY of
| districting the whole territory OF the
| church intoas many districts as there
| are effective bishops, less one. and to
| assign to each bishop, except the senior
bishop, a prescribed district for the
| term of four wears, instead of leaving
| the bishops to divide the work as they
do at present. The resolution suggest
! ed that the senior bishop be left without
district, to preside at the bishops
! meeting and supeFintend the entire
work. Referred to committee on epls-
| copacy.
DIR. w. F. Warren, of Boston, intro
| duced a resolution to have capable
committee appointed to revise the open
ing chapter of tie discipline, which
treats of the origin and history OF the
| church. The paper was referred to the
committee OH revision of discipline, and
| DIR, Warren was added to the commit
| tee.
! A ringing resolution was offered call
| Ing for an earnest effort to unite the two
branches Of the Methodist Episcopal
church in the United States. 1T was re-
-ferred to the committee OH state OF the
church, amid applause.
K A long resolution was introduced by
! Rev. Mr.. Brown, a cOlOred Maryland
Ebrother, declaring that the colored
brethren were faithful and loyal to the
/ church, and would remain so, notwith-
standing the false report that had been
E!circulated to the effect that the colored
labrethren intended to stampede from
the church if certain concessions were
ulot made to Them The resolution was
greeted by applause. THE disease
that DIR. Bucklev2speaks of. 'bishopho-
bia.'" said Rev.. Mr.. Brown, has
reached the cOlored brethren in this
conference. but theyare not going to
have disloyalty. if we do not secure the
election of bishop" [Applause.]
Rev. MIR. Doffey, of Delaware (col
! ored), said the negro race had caught on
to the great army of modern ideas by
! following the example of the white
| brethren. If bishop was good thing
for white people. it certainly would not
| hurt the colored brethren. Applause
| The paper was finally referred to the
| committee on state Of the church.
| Merrill on the Const tuition.
The conference took up the consider
alton of the report OF the constitution
| commission Bishop Merrill said lie
| would be glad if he could represent the
commission as unit. But it had not
been. The report was the opinion and
| conclusion of the majority. II shall not
| argue the question as TO whether our
| conclusions were right or wrong" said
| al H. LII, .r>fx 1Iafr
our conclusions and leave you TO decide.
That portion of the constitution put in
unlawfully was not put in at all in real
| ity. The constitution really should re-
main as it was in 1868. with the eXcep-
! ton OF those changes which were law
| fully made. That which went in unlaW-
fully took the place of parts that were
| unlawfully put out, and those parts are
not out all, even though they may seem
to be-"
The bishop said he would live to vim
| dicaie the action of the conference or
| 1872, but the trouble lay in the fact that
the conference of 1868 failed to confer
the power upon the conference OF 1872.
which the latter conference assumed.
The conference of 1858 provided for the
clothing of the conference OF 1872 with
mower to change the restrictions then
in existence, but the conference of 1877
went further and made additions to the
restrictive rules. There was the milk
| in the cOcoanut. This assumed au-
thoritv ought to have been corrected
| long ago. but never had been. There
were Methodists still living, he said.
who imagined that the six restrictive
rules formed the whole of the conStitu-
ton OF the general conference. He had
thought that they were all translated,
|
mission held that all the fundamental
rules that govern the general conference
were part of the constitution.
In closing the explanation Bishop
Merrill said: ut is for this conference
10 decide whether the act OF the coll
ference of 1872 was or was not legal
act: the commission had no right to
BASS upon that. We have simply re-
perted the facts as we believe they eX-
ist."
i Some one asked why the report had
hot been printed months ago. because It
had been ready some time prior 10 the
meeting or the conference.
I'VE were appointed by the last gen
eral conference" said Bishop Merrill,
with instructions to report TO this geii-
eral conference, not to the public. aid
we have followed the INSTRUCTIONS
ior Amendment 30 Legalize.
he DR.. Hammond then offered an amend
Hpnt to the report to make all those
acts constitutional which had been sup
ported by two-thirds vote OF the
church in accordance with the restrict
i've rules. but all other parts should not
he considered part of the constitution.
DIR. Duel spoke vigorously in favor or
putting the seal of approval upon those
things that had been done in accordance
with the restrictive rules, but not to
approve of anything that had not been
done with due authority.
Dir. J. ~ Hamilton said that this was
a look backward. There was no nse 10
find great fault With anybody. The con-
ference should look at the whole sItna-
tion under the light of the present day.
He objected to the long preamble That
the commission had presented. he
iiuped to see the conference take up the
matter calmly, with ii view 10 agree.