St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-05-13
The Methodist Conference
Engages in a Very
Hot Discussion.
A Pennsylvania Lawyer As
SupeS the Brethren All
Are in the Same Boat.
Report on the Constitution
Indefinitely Postponed by
a Decisive Vote.
Text Of a Substitute That
Gave the Delegates
Satisfaction.

OMAHA. May 12.-Today Bishop John
| P. Newman presided over the delibera-
tions of the Methodist conference, but
| hardly quorum was present when the
conference was called to order.
Bishop Newman held the conference
to the strict observance of the rule de-
manding good order. He raped on the
stand and called for the absolute suS-
pension of all conversation during the
| reading of the minutes.
The roll of conferences was called for
the Offering of resolutions and memo
rials. DR.. Lenahan offered a resolution
| providing that the bishop might, in fol-
lowing the rules already i'll vogue, count
five years in every ten for the appoint
ment of the itinerant ministry. That is
| to permit minister to be returned to
charge after lapse of five years. This
lis simply to make the rule more definite.
| A resolution was introduced by the
book agents of the church calling for
! revision of the church law relating to
the management of the publishing
houses. On account of the fact that
| part of the law had become obsolete, Dr..
| Hunt wanted the committee ON the
book concern to make the revision and
then report the action to the confer
erlce. DR.. Nicely wanted the paper re-
ferred to the committee on revisals. 1t
went to the committee on book concern.
I The regular order was suspended for
the purpose of resuming the decision of
constitutional revision. Dr.. j. F.GOuch-
er. of Baltimore, did not agree with the
conclusions of the constitution commits
sion. DR.. f. r. Bristol, of Chicago, held
that there was no such thingfas the con-
stitutiOn of the general conference
apart from the constitution of the NJ. E.
church. The conference was the
Creature of the Church,
not the church the creature of the con-
ference. What the conference should
do was to decide what the constitution
Of the church was, and that would set
tie the whole question. Applause
s"Ihe Iaymen at this conference hold
their seats here bY statutory enact
ment," said DIR. Bristol. ''The confer
ence can at any time, by statutory
enactment, admit equal lay representa-
tion." [Applause.]
Judge Lawrence, of OHIO, was given
the most profound attention. He said
the object of this great discussion was
to determine what the constitution of
the Methodist Episcopal church was.
He agreed with DR.. Bristol in the state
ment that the constitution of the
church embraced the constitution of
the general conference. but he
held that the plan of lay rep
resentation did not depend upon stat
utory enactment, for one of the reStric-
tive rules had been changed cOnStitu-
tionalIy to admit the laymen. They
held their seats by constitutional right.
not by statutory amendment. DR.. Kyn-
EFT wanted to contradict statement
made by Judge Lawrence with regard
to his utteranceS, but Rev. Doug las, of
ity in springing into the arena. A
heated contest followed between DR..
Kynett and several others who thought
that he Should not allow himself to catch
fire because some one had said that his
speech Of the previous day was revolu-
tionary.
In the Same Boat.
j. FL. Murray, of Pennsylvania, is a
LAWYER, with voice that reaches away
out into the vestibule. Il do not SHARE"
said he, lin that fear which some of my
ministerial brethren have with regard
to the safety of the laymen in this
body. Laughter We are here to stay.
TAppIause. II our seats are in danger
the seats of the ministers are also in
danger, because there has been no legiS-
lation on this particular question since
1872, and the rights of the ministers in
this body rests upon exactly the same
act that the seats Of the laymen rest
upon. We are with you, brethren.
[Great applause l do not hold that
the act was constitutional exactly, but
it is stable enough to stand, all the
same"
1.-THE plan may have lacked some of
the elements of constitutionality, but it
was a legislative enactment and it is
part of our church law. The laymen,
should and Will be given equal repre-
sentation in the general conference"
(Applause).
DR.. Kynett finally succeeded in secur-
ing recognition, and he was greeted
with applause. He proceeded to a
refutation of the remarks that had
been made the day before by DR.. Buck
ley with reference to his inconsistent
attitude, and he also replied to Judge
Lawrence, who had characterized DR..
Kynett's opinion as being revolutionary.
Dr. Kynett declared there was no such
thing as the constitution of the general
conference. it was the constitution of
the NJ. E. church. If this document
was simply the constitution of the gen
eral conference, then there were thou
sands of ministers who were not held
by any constitutional enactment be-
cause they were not members Of the
general conference. (Applause).
Locking Horns.
! DR.. j. NJ. Buckley declared that he
had no sympathy with the statement
that there was no such thing as con-
tstitution of the general conference.
Prior. to 1908 everything in the discipline
was the constitution of the church.
Since that time many root ideas had
been added. DR.. Buckley again af-
firmed that DR.. Kynett had made state
ments in the conference of 1872 that he
new contradicted. A sharp alteration
Between them took place.
DR.. j. e. Graw, of New Jersey, said
he was weary of the discussion, and he
moved the previous question, which
was ordered, being an amendment Of |
fered by DIR. Bridgment to amend the
motion of the report, The amendment
was tabled.
Dr.. Goucher offered substitute
knocking out nearly all of the pream- |
BILE and declaring that the section of the |
law enacted with relation to lay repre-
sentation, partook of the nature of leg |
isIatiye enactment, but the principle |
was constitutional. The substitute was
adopted by an overwhelming vote.
Dr.. Neely sprang to his feet and
moved that the further consideration Of |
the report be postponed until Friday |