New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-05-13
VICTORY FOR THE LAYMEN.
ACTION OF THE METHODIST GENERAL CON
FERENCE.
THEIR SEATS SECURED UNDER THE NEW CON.
STITUuON-FURTHER DISCUSSION
DEFERRED UNTIL, 1896.
fBY TELEGRAPH TO TEE tribune.

fBY TELEGRAPH TO TEE TRIBUNE,
Omaha. Neb.. May 1o.-Atter several days Of
lot debate. the Methodist General Conference
this morning suddenly resolved the question of
the laymcns right to their seats, and post
poned action on the other part of the new con-
si,ution until the General Conference of 1896 This
constitution. written by Bishop Merrill of the com
mission appointed four years ago. is accompanied by
an elaborate preamble defining the present constltu
ton and affirming that the lay delegates do not hold
Office consttutiOnally. The Conference decision ex-
tingushcs the preamble and asserts hat the principle
Of hay delegation Is constitutional, although the plan Is
not. and thus virtually comedies the right OF the Con
ference to modify the plan by ordering equal lay and
ministerial representation il II wishes. This repre-
sents signal triumph for the laymcn and their cham
pon, John Field, the Philadelphia postmaster. and
covers with glory DR.. John F. Goucher. president Of
the Woman's College at Baltimore, who presented the
victorious amendment DR.. J. NJ Buckley. Of New
York, is responsible for the postponemcnt TO 1896.
which will give the desired opportunity for general
study Of the commissions report before action.
When the Conference took up the question this morn
ing there-yer three motions before it, The first was
a resolution. signed by DR.. J. II. Bridgman. Of Mime
sofa. and Emory N1ler of Iowa. and read follows
That amend tina: part the report under con.
siGeration by changing the last paragraph
that shall read follows The present constitution
the delegated General Conference is the document drawn
and adopted by the General Conference 1908 but modified
restrictions the original document. and consists Of
Paragraphs 50 to g. inclusive in the Discipline OF 1888
excepting Paragraphs &C. 81 and IS, and whatever else
this chapter relates the method OF working the plan
OF the lay DELEGATIONS"
An amendment by DR.. j. ID. Hammond. Of san
Francisco. altered this TO read
That the first part Of de report Of the commission end
with the word document in the sixth line from the bot
tom Of page FIVE. tina: the in que ston shall
read Therefore the present constitution of the delegated
Conference the document drawn up and adopted
by the General Conference Of 1908 but modified since that
in accordance with the specifications and restrictions
Of the original document
Both OF these intended to be superseded by
the Goucher substitute, reading:
The section the General Conference in the Discip.
Inns Of 1905 adopted by the General Conference OF
1903 has the nature and force OF constitution. That
section together with such notifications as have been
adopted accordance with the provisions
amendment that section rs the present constitution
and included Paragraphs IS TO Co. inclusive in
Discipline OF the Methodist Episcopal Church Of 1888
excepting first the change OF the provisions for the call
ing extra Of the General Conference from
.wo.thrds OF the Annual Conference.
and second, that which the plan OF lay dele
cation. recommended BY the General Conference OF
1868 and passed by the General Conference Of 1873
This substitute signed by Dr. Goncher. DR..
Joseph Pullman, of New-York: Professor Charles J.
Little Of Syracuse Judge Thomas Fl. Murray. OF
Altoona; john Field. John Evans Of Denver and f. J.
Hill.
~proposes to assert that the section adopted by the
Conference OF 1905 relating to General Conference
IS Of the Of a constitution. 1t says who shall
compose the conference and defines Its powers and
duties and when this section was introduced. by
body including all the ministry Of Methodsm, the
purpose evidently to create constitution. The
Conference OF 1912 limited within Its preroeaves
and alsp has been every subsequent General Con
ference. Thereupon 1t had the force as Wen as the
nature OF q constitution The first exception named
In the substitute covers the only case where the con
stitution was attempted to be amended within sub
mission Of the question to the annual conferences and
Is therefore legislative and constitutional. The
second exception does not exclude laymen from this
body under the duly enacted amendment according
to the prescribed conditions OF 1907
"The question isn't" said DR.. F. VI. Bristol, OF
Chicago what is the constitution OF the General con-
ference but is there constitution distinct from the
constitution of the Churcha There Is no
such thing as constitution OF the Ch'fed
States Senate or Of the Judicial Department
These branches are amenable to the Federal Con
stitnt.o and II is absurd for 10 make an arbitrary
di distinction In our The Church IS not u
creature or branch Of the General conference
The Conference derives its constitutional lie from
the Church. All that We need Is deciarl'ioh a.
10 what is the constitution OF the Church. The
Conference, however, has the power TO make is"s
for the Church. and while the laymen are here con
sti,ntionalIy the rule of their admission is wholly
statutory
The strongest churches in the world have an
established constitution" said Judge William Lawrence
81 Ohio al agree with DR.. Bristol that there Is no
constitution OF the General Conference. Inc terms
.consttutlon, and organic law convertible That
mart OF the action OF the General Conference OF loo
and part OF the action OF subsequent General ana
Annual conferences including the action OF inc
General Conference Of 1868 OH the subject VI
Inv delegation, the action OF annual conferences
and that OF the General Conference Vi io'-
thereon the right to lay delegation wiai members
as specified In such action has become part VI .e
organic law OF the Church We are here by virtue
MT ~ mere statutory law but Of provision OF the
constitution and without Us there is not and cannot
be any General Conference .
Tho grant Of the right OF lay delegation sa'u
Judge Murray of Altoona. is and ought 10 Do p'''
OF the constitution. The principle OF the pan oue"'
TO be and is a matter OF legislation IN; minister
saw that unless we put the plan as well as the s".
Into the constitution we are In danger. We oes .,
tben 10 dismiss their We are here 70 stay. IL
We are not here 10 what becomes OF thein ie
same constitutional provision, Paragraph 3D. WIN"
ut them here puts lis here. There is nobody mere
that holds a title prior to lo'2 Ihere nus o0' 'o
election since 1872, excepting by lay votes >, ta'
there is good deal involved in the question. ii we
Are in danger we therefore say 10 YOU that VIC "'
in nro,opnd sympathy with you. The plan OF hay deie
CATION WAS not constitutional. because IL had ho' .n3
proceeding action OF the annual conferences ana IL uu
not having the preceding action because IL was ho'
sentally the subject OF consttutohai ei'uo''"0'''
Tile case IS precisely analogous 70 grant " ''
stit,,tlonaI enactment Of the right OF suffrage 70
new class Of PERSONS
1.-The second restrictive rule said DR.. Nicely IN oe
fsncs of the commission, "conclusively prevents ue
General Conference from granting equal TPics7"'
ton as DR.. Bristol suggests. History 9"o"' ''',
there ia constitution OF the General Conference ana
th., .y.rr onondment before us admits. II the whoc
section was constitution, the amendment says IL
could only be changed according to the constitutional.
process. If It is not there consutonaiy' IL IS not
there and II IL is not there, where is 1t Inc ac
ton OF the commission ives concession 10 "e ia'"'
and IL that is rejected 1t follows 'hat 'Nere - -,
cms4l,utonal right to separate vote The rights OF