Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-05-13
Methodists Compromise as to What
Their Constitution Is, and
THEN SHELVE THE WHOLE TOPIC.
The Advantage Is With the Believers in
Lay Representation.
FREEDMEN QUESTIONS TO COME UP

already in vogue count five years In every
ten for the appointment of the itinerant
ministry; that is, to permit q minister to be
returned to charge after the lapse OF i've
years. This is simply to make the rule
more definite.
A resolution was introduced by book
agents of the Church, calling for a revision
of the Church law relating to the manage
ment of the publishing houses. On account
of the fact that part OF the law had be-
come obsolete, DR.. Hunt wanted the Com
mittee on the Book Concern to make the
revision, and then report the action to the
Conference.
Dr. Neely wanted the paper referred to
the Committee on Revision. 1t went to the
Committee on the Book Concern.
The Work of the Day Is Tackled.
The regular order was suspended for the
purrose of resuming the discussion of con-
stitutional revision. Speeches were limited
TO ten minutes DR.. j. f. Goucher, of Bal
timore, first took the floor. He did not
agree with the conclusions of the Constitu-
tion Commission.
DIR. f. R. Bristol, of Chicago held there
is no such thing as the constitution OF the
General Conference apart from the constitu-
ton of the NJ E. Church. The Conference
is the creature of the Church, not the
Church the creature of the Conference.
What the Conference should do is to decide
what the constitution of the Church is, and
that would settle the whole question. Ap-
plause. ''The laymen at this Conference
hold their seats here by statutory enact
ment," SAID DR. Bristol "This Conference
can at any time, by statutory enactment,
admit equal lay representation" lap
plause.
of this great discussion is to determine what
the constitution of the Methodist Episcopal
Church is.
Constitutional Rights OF Laymen.
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
representation does not depend upon statu-
tory enactment, for one of the Restrictive
Rules had been changed constitutionally to
admit the laymen. They held their seats
by constitutional right, not by statutory
amendment
DR.. Kvnett wanted to contradict state
ment made by Judge Lawrence, but Rev.
Mr.. Douglas of Indiana, had the floor by
right of priority in springing into the
arena A heated contest followed between
DR.. Kynett and several others who thought
he should not allow himself to catch fire
because someone had said his speech of the |
previous day was revolutionary. DR.. |
kynett was shut out for the time being. |
After a number of speeches ]. II. Muir |
raw, of Pennsylvania, who is lawyer with |
q voice that reaches away out into the ves- |
tibule, said:
lido not share in that fear which some of |
nv ministerial brethren have with regard |
to the safety of the laymen in this body. |
ILaughter.l We are here to stay. Zap |
plause.l
Clergy and Laymen in the Same Box.
If our seats are in danger, the seats of the |
ministers are also in danger, because there |
has been no legislation on this particular |
question since 1872, and the rights of the |
ministers in this body rest upon exactly |
the same act that the seats of the laymen |
rest upon. We are with you, brethren.
TGreat applause.l l do not hold that the act |
was constitutional exactly, but it is stable |
enough to stand, all the same. The plan |
may have lacked some of the acts of con-
stitutionality, but it is a legislative enact |
ment, and it is part of our church law. 1t |
can be amended. 1t is capable of improve
ment: all human law is. The laymen should /
and will be given equal representation in /
the General Conference. tApplausel
When DR.. Kynett finally succeeded in Sc
curing recognition he proceeded to refuta-
tion of the remarks that had been made the /
day before bv DIR. Buckley with reference
TO his inconsistent attitude, and he also re-
piled to the speech of Judge Lawrence, who
had characterized DIR. Kynett's opinion as
being revolutionary. Dr. Kynett declared |
there is no such thing as the constitution of |
the General Conference. 1t is the consti- |
tuition of the NJ E. Church.
Ministerial Rights Are Questioned.
If this document is simply the constitu-
ton Of the General Conference, then there |
are thousands of ministers who are not held |
by any constitutional enactment, because
they are not members of the General Con-
ference. [Applause].
DR.. Buckley then declared that he has no
sympathy with the statement that there is
no such thing as constitution of the Gen.
eral Conference Prior to 1903, everything
in the Discipline was the constitution on
the Church. Since that time many root
ideas had been added. DR.. Buckley again
affirmed that Dr. Kynett had made state
ments in the Conference of 1872 that he now
contradicted. A sharp alteration between
them took place.
DR.. j. B. Graw, of New Jersey, moved
the previous question, which was called.
DR. Bridgemont to amend the motion OF the
report. The amendment was tabled.
DR.. Goucher offered a substitute, knock
ing out nearly all of the preamble and de-
claring that the section of the law enacted
with relation TO lay representation partook
of the nature of legislative enactment, but
the principle was constitutional
The Whole Question Disposed OF
The substitute was adopted by an over
whelming vote. DR.. Nealy. sprang to his
feet and moved that the further considera-
tion of the report be postponed until Fri
day before taking further action.
DR.. Buckley moved substitute to post
pone the consideration of the subject indef- |
nitely and the report be printed in the
church papers, to be reported by the COM
mission at the next General Conference /
After great wrangle DR.. Buckley's motion /
to indefinitely postpone the constitutional /
question was carried. DIR. Kynett called /
for a vote by orders, but it was not granted |
The vote on indefinite postponement of the |
whole of the subject of the constitutional |
report stood as follows: Ayes, 233; nays,
100. The entire Conference seemed to take |
a deep breath of relief when this question |
had been thus disposed Of
The following is the full text of the sub
stitute for the report of the Constitutional
Commission, which was adopted by the Con-
ference:
The Decision of the Conference.
The section on the General Conference in
the Discipline of 1s0s, as adopted by the Gen.
eral Conference of 1908, has the nature and |
force of a constitution. That section, to-
gether with such notifications as have been
adopted since that time in accordance with