The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1892-05-18
oxAHA, Neb., May lo.-The cold wealth.

OMAHA, Neb., May 10.-The cold wealth.
or and rain that have prevailed for days
have cast . gloom over the methodist con-
ference, but most Of the delegates seem
determined to make the gathering q sue
cess in every way. despite the condition of
the outdoor atmosphere. Behind the
clouds the sun is shining" esid promi-
nent delegate this morning, striking =
poetic mood, "some days must be dark
and dreary."
Bishop w. Fitzgerald presided at today g
session, and Dr. B. B. Hamilton led in de-
votionsl exercises. Capt. McCabe, assisted
By two of the secretaries, formed q very
effective trio to lead the singing. 1t seems
70 be the prevailing opinion among the
lay delegates this morning that there will
be no bishops elected at this session.
The committee on episcopacy was
expected to report today. but the
committee will not be ready
on account OF the fact that the colored
brethren are pulling every possible string
10 secure the election of q colored bishop.
The final report of the committee on epis-
copacy will probably come about Thurs
day or Friday of this week. The fight
over the editorial chair of the Chennidl i'd
socate at st. Louis is growing very inter
esting. It lies between DR.. Mssd en- of St.
Louis, Dr. Bowman Young of Kansas City
and DR.. Creighton of the Nebraska Wes-
ieyan univsrslty. DR.. Curtis of Chicago
and Dr. Maxwell of Omaha are candidates
for the position held by DR.. Stowe Of Gin
cinnati. agent of the'book concern. Some
very energetic wire-pulling Is going on
along the lines. The minutes are becom-
ing voluminous, and q full hour every
morning is consumed in reading and cor
recting them.
The order OF the day was the report of
the committee on constitution, and every
body expected that the flood-gates of elo-
Quence would be thrown wide open. DR..
Buckley moved that inasmuch as Bishop
Merrill was chairman OF the constitution
committee, he be requested to explain the
changes suggested by the report. DR..
Geelev was opposed to the idea of permit
ting any of the bishops TO speak. Even
explanations, he said, were sometimes a
very strong argument
DR.. Miley of Drew seminary said: IL
am surprised that DR.. Neeley should make
such q speech as that which he has Just
made. Is il possible that we are afraid to
Jet our bishops speak upon the topics that
come before this body? Are the interests
and doctrines in danger when a bishop
takes the hoor2 l hope Bishop Merrill
will be permitted to speak on this SUBJ
ject-" DIR. Buckley took the floor and
argued vehemently for the motion to per-
NIT Bishop Merrill to speak He referred
10 the former action OF the conference on
.lr f-0 Ifo-
eases, he said. that broke out in a general
conference: One was bishopphObia, sort
of unnatural fear of bishops the other was
bishophomsnia laughter and applansel
an intense desire to be elected TO the epis-
copacy. He hoped that neither of these
would so warp the minds of the brethren
that they would not have confidence in
the impartiality Of the bishops to such an
extent as to exclude them from the floor.
IL was q sad state of things if the church
had come TO such a state that the supreme
officers of the denomination could not be
given tree opportunity TO speak in the con-
ference upon important ubjects. The reso-
luton giving Bishop Merrill the privilege
of explaining the report on the constitu-
ton was passed.
The rules were suspended here, how
ever. and the committee on the Colum bian
exposition was called for. The report
declared strongly against Sunday opening.
In closing, the report said: Better that
the Columbian exposition neither be
opened at all than that the gates be
opened on Sunday" The committee
heartily favored the appropriation of
$1,000 900 of government funds, provided
that the gates be closed on SUNDAY, but if
the gates were to be opened on the Sab
bath, then the conference was aked to
oppose the appropriation. The COM
mitttee recommended that a telegram
bearing the sentiments of the report be
sent at once to the president of the United
States and to congress. Several vigorous
speeches were made favoring the resolu-
sion. The preamble and resolutions were
Endorsed, but were committed Tor re-
vision. The committee was instr acted to
send the proposed telegram to Washing
ton.
The report Of the committee on consti-
tuition was considered by paragraphs, DR..
Nicely taking the floor TO explain the first
Bection. The frat declaration was that
the first three sections OF the present dis
cipline are unconstitutional. This is
eombsted. as it is held that this would
compel all acts OF the general conference
90 be reviewed by the annual conference.
DR. Little of central Illinois, Or. Leonard
of Ohio and DIR. Curtis of Chicago dis
cussed the matter In the negative. They
held that portions OF the alleged constitu-
tion are merely statutory laws and not
constitutional provisions. Under such a
holding the laymen legally could not hold
deal in the conference They are here by
suffrance only. DR.. b. II. Potts of De-
troit was the next speaker He was
opposed to the definition of the constitu-
ton presented by the commissioner. Dr.
Kynett defended the action OF the COM
mission in vigorous speech. The Rev.
q. f. Alderman OF Tennessee spoke for
five minutes and opposed the definition of
the constitution py the commission.
DR.. J. NJ. Buckley then took the floor
He spoke with bis usual vigor. He held
that the restrictive rules were not all that
belonged to the constitution. III that were
the case the general conference could an
initiate itself by majority vote OF /.
DIR. Buckley held, however, that the plan
of admitting lay delegates was never q
part OF the constitution, but ii was in
dorsed by the restrictive rules. II was the
work of the general conference. But the
serious dangers to which other speakers
had referred relating TO the right OF the
Iaymen to sit in the conference did not
exist Their rights were secure even If
they mad not been admitted by constitu-
tfonal amendment The restrictive ruIes