New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-05-06
THE RIGHTS OF BISHOPS.
CONTROVERSIAL STORM IN TIE METHODIST
CONFERENCE.
HEATED DISCUSSION AROUSED BY NOTION FOR
THE APPOINTMENT OF 4 JUDI
GARY COMMITTEE.

Omaha, May 5.-Nobody who sat through this morn
ings session Of the Methodist General Conference ca
fear that there Is any danger Of the Ciurch's domino
ton by an ecclesiastical hierarchy. For two hours IN
bishops sat calmly on the platform, with Bishop Waldo
In the chair, while about them ragged a storm OF con
troversy concerning their rights and privileges DR.
j. NJ. Buckley. of New York. parliamentary Hotspur
not only aty refused 70 let Of the bishops exceed
his executive function by making speech but declare;
that in debate I've regarded the episcopaY mere
cipher. Chaplain" McCabe, himself "epscopa
possibility when called to order buntly retored
"rhc bishops are not always in ORDER DR.. l.. Is
Hctt, OF Ohio. insisted the revision Of an objection
able clause In the episcopal address until lie learned
that the address had been wrongly reported. The
bishops. however, found Ipany champions the floor
and bore themselves with quiet dignity throughout
motion 10 appoint committee TO confer with them
concerning the need for more bishops unanimously
adopted
The debate provoked by Dr. T. 2. Necly's call
ing up his motion for the appointment by the bishops
Of a judiciary committee of fourteen, from each
general conference district which shall be referred
oil records Of judicial conferences appeals from the
conferences OF individual members Of the Church. and
oil other law questions which may be referred TO by
the General Conference. DR. Nicely changed the mum.
Der Of the committee by adding memberat. large.
DR.. ID. H. Moore, OF Cincinnati. Editor Of The West
ern Christian Advocate. offered a substitute, making
the committee consist of fifteen members the delegates
from each conference district to nominate one and the
fourteen members thus named to nominate n member
at-lnree
- i consider II altogether improper. said DR. Moore
explanation. TO lay upon The bishops the duty Of
appointing this committee. The conference of 1876
m motion Of Luke Tueal, appointed the committee with
The province OF considering questions OF law and re-
porting It's decision. In 1884. motion OF Dr. Buck
cy, Its province was enlarged Ny point is that a
court whose rulings are TO be revised ought not ID
be asked to appoint the reviewers. When the
mittee WINS first formed II followed the plan con-
templated in the substitute. ard know the bishops
would be glad 10 be left out Of the duty. The fnct
Is. the relations between the bishops and the clergy
and the conference are harmonious and delightful
that II would be highly injudlcous 10 eopardze them
BY such motion rs DIR. Necy's'
DR.. Buckley. who out OF the building when the
matter came up, here advanced the front OF tho
house and obtained recognition Excuse me- said
Bishop Foster, coming to the edge of the platform.
"will you allow me to say Words Nothing about
the opinions Of the Bishop answered the Doctor.
stouty u only hope rejoined the Bishop, mildly.
"that the conference, In this discussion will have no
reference the bishops. We have no wishes In the
matter ut ALL
DR.. Buckley bowed and went on. AZ consider this |
an important question:" he said 70 the conference.
in itself and its relations. DR.. Mobres arguments
faacious The acts of the bishops are renewable
by the general conference, acts Of personal discretion IN
the administration VI their Office. and acts Of inter
probation eXpounders OF law to the conference This
question touches only acts Of Interpretation Of law in
connection with the of judicial annual con
fcences. Or. Moores proposition is TO elect judges of
o temporary supreme By massnecting. He !
went back to 1876. Well i go back to 1886 |
In that year committee Of five ap |
pointed TO examine and report complaints. Tho |
bishops then were far fewer than they now, but |
the presiding bishop, 1t was decided should appoint
thai first judiciary committee. To me. when am |
no is n I
agree with them or not. l never did, never WILL
1t Is true. have changed my opinion on the COM
mtttee question, but have learned much In the last
four years."
How about the woman question :, asked Dr. c. F.
Creighton, Of Nebraska.
when the Church." retorted Or. Buckley amid
general laughter "constituonnlly settles that then
I am through with opposition. Before that 1 am not |
! will make the change when cannot do anything !
else. won't change my principles then, but will |
submit to the constitutional majority. The question
here Is simply shall certain men instruct the dele
gates Of the General Conference districts or shall the
bishops select the whom In their experience they
know to be competent
~ resent DIR. Buckey's imputation that this is q |
mass meeting said DR.. John b. Maxfeld. 81 do,
however, indorse his position that we need the best
men on this committee. DO not bend my knee 10 |
any eccesiastic hierarchy, but episcopal colleagues
have our confidence. care not what few carping |
souls may say. They enjoy our affection and esteem
and whatever they do will be accepted as inspired
By proper motives.'
"rhe fact is said L. C. Queal. OF NewYork, this
judiciary Committee IS not final thing. The Gen |
eral Conference has ultimate authority concerning all |
these questions Of law Them why quarrel the |
methods of bringing those questions TO / move |
to amend that the bishops nomina.e and the General
Conference confirm the appointments TO the Judiciary
Committee. make this motion simply to meet a |
prejudice that l think may exist
A into Said Mold
George p. Mains Of New-YorA, promptly moved to
lay the substitute the table and this presently
done by . vote OF 300 to 1913.
~ am opposed to this amendment said DR..
Creighton preparing himself for long speech. "Thcre
Is no amendment before u.s. said the Bishop. Then
what Is before us? ?" "Dr. Neey's notion Several
parliamentary tangles having been Strengthened,
DR.. Creighton again attempted to speak, but 1t took
another ten minutes to get the conference quoted
down. 81 want something done 10 remove the cbjec. |
Ton concerning the appointment bv the bishops OF men
to review their actions DR.. Creighton finally
managed 10 say. Perhaps the bishops can select q |
good committee but an overpowcring objection like
that must be squarely met IL believe IN the
General Conference said DIR. Nicely. "The only party
that has any RICH: to legslatc is the delegates
Bishops have no right TO take part In debates, they
simply preside. They ought not OF course. to pass
on their action. Rut let my motion read nom
mate instead Of appoint Tint gives the Confer
unacceptable and compel the bishops to renom-
mate until they satisfied. The President Of the
United States does not appoint the Supreme Court
judges who would sit his case. lie simply nom
mates. My motion in this form would probably be a
good compromise
The amendment unanimously accepted. DR.. |
J. W. Hamilton, OF Boston, spoke in favor of the mo-
ton as amended. The Conference then voted ON DR.. |
Ncelys motion. which carried
huge bunch OF memorials and petitions was passed
up 10 the secretary from the different conferences.
One. requesting the Committee the State Of the |
Church TO advise President Harrison OF the Churchs
objection TO the Cnese Exclusion act was referred TO
The following committee: Judge William Lawrence OF
Ohio; DIR. William Swlndels, OF Philadelphia J. C. |
OF Kansas; ". Y. Dillingham; OF Vermont |
md =. ii. Root, of Buffalo. A telegram wgs In the |