Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1893-04-08
The Methodist Pro,cstants.


women to elders orders and to election
as delegates to the General Conference,
but directly to the validity of the action
of the last General Conference III adj
uniting female delegates, ard the pro.
priety of the submission by the Genera!
Conference ofthe overturcs i'll regard
to the same, specifically declaring that
4 woman could be admitted to elders
orders and be elected as a delegate 10
the General Conference The speeches
made on the subject, with one or TWO
exceptions, did not relate 10 the ques-
ton of woman's church rights, though
one or two OF the speakers spoke i'll no
uncertain terms oftheir position on the
question.
The burden of the speeches was as to
the action tselfof the last General Con-
ference in the matter, in view OF the
fact that the present law of the church
bad. in the past, all along been inter
pretcd as being opposed to the woman :
side of the question. This was animals
verified upon at length and, ut times,
with considerable bitterness, and this,
too, by some who have the reputation
of lavoring the admission OF women,
the claim being that in submitting the
overtirres in question there was an EVIL
dent spirit of disingenuousness and that
even the considering of them would be
inconsistent and very inappropriate.
Thus, in the final vote, it was Impossl-
| bic to form Il conclusion as TO the &C
tual position of the conference on the
subject.
This side of the question was brought
out by the introduction, by Rev. ;. Il.
Switzerland and Mr.. &. X. Button, OF
the following resolution:
Whereas, The General Conference,
which sat in Westminster, Md, from
Nav goth to May Slst, 1892, did submit
TO the annual conferences an overture
in the words following, TO wit
/. Amend Article MI. by adding,
and, provided that no annual co%ier-
ence shall elect woman TO the Office OF
Cider
,. Amend Article MI. by adding,
"And, provided that no annual confer
ence shall elect woman rs Il rerrescn-
tative to the general conference.
and, whereas, ii is evident that ii
was the intention of the majority by
whom said overture was adopted, TO
make the action of the general confer
ence of 1892 binding upon the church,
although said action was in conflict with
the solemn declarations of prcccdin.
general conferences. one of which was
clothed with convention powers
And, whereas, this was an attempt
to reverse the established order OF pro
codure. which requires vote of two,
thirds of the annual conferences to al
ter or amend the constitution, and i'm,
pose upon those who adhere to the
law as heretofore expounded by the
highest authorities in the church, The
necessity Of securing vote OF two
thirds Of the general conferences to an.
uui the unlawful action OF the general
conference of 1892;
Ahd. whereas. the inhihitions OF tht
aforesaid overture are already in the
constitution and discipline OF the Meth
olist Protestant Church, and 10 lcgis-
laton is needed 10 place or keep them
there; therefore,
Resolved, That the Maryland An,
nual Conference does hereby refuse tC
vote on the aforesaid overture.
Dr.. :. b. Southr"iand, one OF the
movers on the resolutions. at,cr giving
a history of the movement in behalf OF
worran representation in the ministry
and conferences, stated that article
NIL. which the overtureS of the gen
cral conference wished to amend. IN
tended primarily TO restrict the right ci
the churches as TO the suffrage o!
women. and that the established ana
unvarying custom Of the church UP 70
The last general conference had been
in accordance with this theory. He
himself believed most firmly that the
ministry of the church should be for Il
manhoOd-kind that it was not intended
| for woman to assume the duties either OF
81 minister or that of a lay delegate.
But his prime reason for his resolution
WAS that the course Of the General Con-
ference was totally at variance with all
previous methods of altering the tanda-
mental laws and customs OF the church,
and at variance with the prescribed
mode of procedure, and that, such be-
inc the case, he considered ii unworthy
of this annual conference to pay any
attention to the overture as such.
Rev. DR.. J. 3. Jones followed with q
general, semi-satirical criticism OF all
general conferences, terming them as
Quadrennial palavers, and as not being
worth 33 cents, and said that there
should never be another. They were 4
source oftroublc, rs is evidenced by the
present bone of contention. For him
self. he advocated the womans side.
Rev. DR.. David Wilson, of Washing
ton, urged that the matter should not
be acted upon until the annual confer
encc Immediately preceding the next
general conference, which is three years
of.
Rev. DIR. J. D. Murray, member of
the recent General Conference, claimed
that the method adopted by that body
in thus attempting TO secure action by
the annual conference on the question,
was one of indirection.
Rev. w. NJ. Straycr, also member
of the General Conference, was in favor
of action by the conference, and showed
that he was an ardent advocate of the
woman side OF the question.
Rev. DR.. T. H. Lewis, president Of
the Western Maryland College, con-
tended that a vote for or against the
overture in question must be in either
event vote against ones conviction.
For, everyone acknowledged the law
of the church and its interpretations, at
least up to the last general conference,
had been against the ordaining of
-. 49,. ~. 90 nlln,. n,. ri.rhf nf rernrn-