The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1894-11-28

Representation resumed its sway in the
General Conference; and the journal Of the
General Conference of 1854 (page 1863 re-
cords a resolution on the subject, which,
together with several memorials, were re-
ferred to a committee. This committee
disposed of the petitions in quite sum,
mary manner denying the request and
characterizing as revolutionary even TIE at
tempt TO effect such change. Is TINS also
simply Justification of history:
In the General Conference OF 1903 the
question was again under consideration
and again the Conference refused to maze
any change (See journal 1888. page ooz):
Then came the war and devastation ana
prostrution After this hiatus, the General
Conference of 1866 assembled. DR.. A. L..
P. Green had sent out circular advocat-
ing Lay Representation, and 1t was warm
" discussed in the Annual Conferences
passing most by very narrow maJorit!es
DR., Green champio;:ed the resolution on
the floor of the General Conference. Spec
ial night sessions were set apart for dis
cussion of the subject, and the discussions
were projected far into the night. l have
the assurance of several living members OF
after forty years Of agitation and coe
schism, still met with strong and able op-
position; and in the final passage was op-
posed by strong vote irreconcilab.es.
Docs this look like Spontaneous con-
cession? In view of these lncontroveruble
facts is it not the literal truth to say that
Lay Representation was granted only at
ter stubborn fght?' If a fight that ex-
tended, as DR.. Abel Stevens says. from
the first decade of its organization to our
day." more than forty years, is not properly
styled "a stubborn fight, then lcontess DO
not understand what language means.
Now just word as to Bishop McIyelre
history quoted by tie editor u sustain his
position. 1 honor and even venercte the
Bishops memory, but that does not relieve
me OF my responsibility to seek truth and
to follow it when found. 1t seems to me
that the preponderance of testlmony-Gen-
eral Conference journalists against tue
Bishop on this point, and as an honest
man am compelled TO follow the testlmo-
ny. 1t is not unusual for people OF "ordi-
nary Intelligence" to accept as gospel truth
whatever they may find in ''the book; Dut
I must be permitted to SIX that 1t IS lttie
unusual and even surprising for one Ike
the editor of The Advocate, who IS sup.
posed to know how history is made, and
who has access to the sources OF history, to
predicate dogmatic assertion upon SIN
lie quotation from q single author without
reference to numerous conflicting data.
Was the editor ignorant of these data, OF
did he assume ignorance on the part OF his
readers? However this may be, since the
editor prefaced his criticism OF my state
ment with an expressed purpose to adlure
ali personality and motive on the part OF
the author of this remarkable statement,
I suppose shall be excused for declining
to notice the epithets, ''mean and low,
with which he closed his editorial.
J. WM. STOKES.
Orangeburg, july 24th.
Note:-It is worth notice that the editor
of the Advocate in his anxiety
to break the force Of discrimination against
laymen in the matter of representa- on
the floor of the Annual Conference pointed
out by me, holds that the General Confer
ence is the only law-making body; that the
Annual Conference was almost entirely an
executive body, dealing with matters OF
routine-and hence (he argued) there was
no need of larger lay representation. In
this also he followed Bishop McTyire. Yet
when Brother Herbert made precisely this
argument few weeks ago, in reply to the
editors crusade against the Holiness Asso-
citation, the editor holds up hands in holy
horror at such hereSy.
The merest tyro in Methodist polity
knows that large number of matters that
intimately concern laymen, the Annual
Conference has absolute power. The elec-
ton Of editors for church papers, appor-
tioning the Bishops funds, Conference
funds, etc., are al matters that intimately
concern the lay membership who have
these funds&o pay; and yet "A, 900 of them
in this State are allowed only 40 represen-
tatives upon the floor of the annual Con-
ference, which deals with these matters.
Although salaries have been steadily pushed
upward, while the ability of the member
ship to pay has steadily tended downward,
expenses of delegates to the General Con-
ference have IN recent years been levied
through the Annual Conferences upon
the membership; and most Of agents for
colleges and other enterprises have been
commissioned by Annual Conferences to
90 out over the country at large cost to the
membership. Yet these gentlemen tell US
that there is no need of lay representation
in the Annual Conference. Does anyone
suppose that these additional burdens
corid have been laid upon al already over
ourdened people, if laymen had been ac-
corded representation in the councils of
the church in proportion to numbers and
influence?
So far from the General Conference being
the cnlv law making body in our church,
is it not perfectly plain that in all matters
affecting the fundamental lnw-the Res
trictive Rules-the final decision is reached
in the Annual Conferences, precisely where
the undue clerical prepouderance exists
One canno. read dozen pages IN the Dis,
cipline without running against the fact.
How then can anyone contend that the
General Conference is the Only place where
lay representation is necessary. if 1t be
necessary tall? AID ii allowable at all,
why should the clergy be allowed $50 times
as much representation as laymen?