New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-05-11
WRANGLING IN CONFERENCE
EQUAL REPRESENTATION STILL THE LEAD
ING TOPIC.
TIE CONTEST BETWEEN THE LAYMEN AND TIE
MINIsTERs-A PROTEST AGAINST oPEN1N6
THE WORLDS FAIR ON SUNDAY
,BY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIpuNk1


Omaha May lo-The Methodist General Confer
ence to-day developed violent opposition 70 'he H."
constitution and again rent itself over the 'eNeu
question OF equal lay and clerical representation "'
bids fair TO overshadow everything else IN i'e "c'
alterations The constitution written by BISHOP "ei
rill the "lawyern among the bishops, ana Ut 4 d.
Neely of Philadelphia. the author OF standard WORN" vi
church law tends 1t is alleged to endshger '"e p
roeat,yes OF the laymen by denying that the' o'ps
seats under a constitutional provision anu "
m the hight of the General Conference 10 a"e'u 'n
mart Of the constitution touching their case H.
,luch,av ~ New-York declared that he wouid a'e
Mt tina stake rather than admit the cohs@'u"o"".'
Of the clay PLAN" while Insisting tia' u'o 10y ~
seats are firmly secured by the RESTRICTIVE i".'s
Postmaster Field Of Philadelphia the H's"'e"
t,ampden at the end Of o heated debate ahrneu thaV
~. n.r constitution had been concocted in the dark,
and he wanted further action postponed nn'ii inc
hart general conference OF 1896 This the conference
refused to DO. Dr. Nicely, wary OF episcopal IN
fngement, opposed proposition this morning 70 per
NIT Bishop Merrill TO speak. The Dishop ho"e'e''
will be heard tomorrow morning wieh "e suo'oe'
will again come up special order lhe COM
mittee Of episcopacy win then also consider PEI"
ton from the colored delegates for the election OF
colored bishop.
DR.. Nicely objected to Bishop Merrills speaking on
the ground that the bishops enjoy no right as speech
makers In the conference This brought DR.. Buckley
to bis feet.
aHas It come to this he cried. "tnat sixteen Of
N. supposed picked men OF the Methodist Eps-
copal church cannot even be invited by body
that has full power TO make rules and regu-
lations subject to few restrictions, TO MAKE
some explanations Of the work OF a commission OF
which one OF their number was appointed charmsni
There are two great diseases with regard to the
epscopacy One Is episcopophobia, most extrsor-
binary excitement when anything Is proposed with
respect 70 the privileges OF Bishops. 1t is closely TO
lated to the liver The other is still more danger
ous-episcopomana, an intense and terrible ana con-
Stunning desire TO be made a bishop. or the two the
FIRST is the more dangerous and the more depressing
When the report Of the Constitutional Commission
was brought up the first or declaratory part was
read.
NJ move to adopt that part Of the report" said
Dr. Nicely "This k one OF the most important
questions that will come before this body The com
mission had three distinct questions 10 consider :
whit the constitution OF the General Conference
what is the organic law OF the Church and whnt
charges II any, should be madei The point now De
fore u.s. is a. to tho constitution The commission
holds that the entire section made by the Nehera
Conferenca of leOs is the constitution OF the General
Conference.-The only tho part known commonly a.
the restrictive rules. but also the other part IL u
admitted that the restrictive rules form part al eas'
OF the constitution. but those rules are not lnde
pendent. They cannot stand by themselves lhey
is more than the restrictive rules and mist at least
fake in the paragraph In regard to the powers OF te
General Conference. Then. II you take that H. ths'
links with that which precpdes. The whoc lt"'ru
ment n unit. and YOU can't separate the restrictive
rules from the powers. the powers from the consu
ton or the constitution from the provisions "ioi
make the constitution. The whole section Is the
charter and the General Conference constituted &C
oording to that has power to make rules ana reeua
lions but no power to touch single thine In the nody
Of the instrument"
instantly n dozen delegates were up and shouting
for recognition.
a what win be the practical effect OF tlis instru
ment,~ asked Professor 6. J. Little OF the North
western University. "This conference Is asked L"
affirm that those parts OF the discipline as to tue lay
delegations cahnot be amended by the General Con
ference without the consent OF the annual conferences
As matter OF fact, the plan Of the lay delegation
was never submitted to the annual conferences
"The plan," said DR.. A. Is. Leonard. OF Ohio. "was
tile act Of the General Conference II has never been
submitted ~ the annua conference therefore. If We
adopt this theory now. we challenge the right of the
iaymen to sit here today because they are not here
Big the constitutional process Dr. Nicely suggests that
these questions will be waived. IL N too seribus @
matter for the laymcn waive and they cannot
afford TO do 1t. in 1882 II understood that this
conference had power 10 make regulations that did MT
involve the destruction Of principles in the restrictive
ru;es and they have acted on this policy. which 4 Is
now proposed to change
at is late now said DR.. James H. Potts. Of
Detroit editor of The Michigan Christian Advocate
"to say that the conference had right TO touch the
constitution. At the first day of this session YOU en-
croached on It when you permitted the laymen and the
ministers to deliberate apart. This socaed consttu
ton requires that they shall deliberate toSetier'
wos Glad that that action was taken first because
believe YOU had a perfect right to take 1t, and
second because 1t may prove TO pe the ehtehR "eaR'
TO complete separation"
al do not believe" said DIR. Buckley, coming LOT
ward with an aImful Of books THAT the restrictive
rules alone form tho constitution OF the General Con
ference That would permit 1t to annihiatc itself by
a majority OF would die at the stake BEFORE
xou,d admit that the plan OF lay delegation was OF
can be part OF the constitution The lapse OF tweh"
vean. nuts IL in does Then can pass anything
and trust to the lapse Of years 10 put 1t In Tine
aymen arc not unseated if the plan is proved not 70
he constitutional. Tie restrictive rules cover that
case" ,., -,
Michigan, that II the plan Of lay delegates Is par
OF our constitution it has not been put t"oH coh'
stitutionay but has been smuggled In. have never
heard In fifty years OF crisis occurring which re
ouired us TO set aside constitution. but II VIII not
become any OF us to say that 1t may not be- II
vero lsyman should scorn this plan. as ii b 50 IN
iuss end 80 unequal"
~ disagree with Dr. Buckley" sald e. W. Hushey,
At A. Louis "as to the power Of this Conference to
commit suicide. There is no constitutional or legal
power to prevent him from changing his position on
the woman question but presume there no danger
Of his doing So"
"Eear. hear I" interiected DIR. Buckley.
al believe the constitution continued Mr.. itushey
found In the restrictive rules and in the restrictive
alone. / never want such miserable abortion as the
pan Of lay delegation TO be adopted or recognized as
part Of the consultation OF this Church 1t ought never
TO have adopted at ALL and having been adopted
IL ought to be modified at the very first opportunity
I believe In absolute equality Of representation OF
ministers and laymen.'
Dr.. Joseph Pullman. Of New-York. said that II
The change were made now IL would take two
uuadrenniums complete II. then the Church could
Kart the twentieth century on sound basis. lie
offercd this resolution as substitute lot the de-
the File present con-