The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-05-26
Clash Between Ministers and Laymen
Over the Latter's Attempt to Secure
Equal Representation.
REV. DIR. HARTZELL HONORED
ELECTED MISSIONARY BISHOP TO
SUCCEED THE RETIRED TAYLOR.
Extraordinary Love Feast, I'm Which
Methodssts from All Lands Partici-
pafcd-TwO Sessions Daily.
Special to the indianapolis Journal.

Special to the Indianapolis Journal.
CLEVELAND, o., May 25.-Pandemonium
reigned Of 1 may be permitted to use
much-worked phrase) in the Methodist Gen.
eral Conference this afternoon. Some of the
delegates were fighting mad. but, of course.
they did not display their anger in an un-
ruly way There was so much tumult that
the scene in the Armory reminded me or
some of the old-time Democratic conven-
tions in Indianapolis. when a score or more
delegates could be heard shouting at the
presiding officer at the same time. The trou-
BILE was between the ministers and laymen,
and Bishop Hurst did his best to preserve
order, but did not succeed very well.
The first pitched battle between the min
isterial and lay delegates occurred this morn
ing 1t was on the motion TO adopt the ma
jority report from the committee on the
constitution, to which had been referred the
document which had been prepared between
1883 and 1892 by commission TO segregate
from the body of the Discipline whatever
might have the nature and favor of con-
stitutlon, and to arrange it In a compact
form, so there might be no doubt as TO what
Is constitution and what is merely statutory.
When this document was presented at Oma-
ha, in 1892, its provisions were deemed so
un-American that on its merits it had few
friends, and it was. after but little debate.
indefinitely postponed, but, with an unpar-
donable diregard 10 parliamentary law, re-
ferred to this General Conference as unfin-
ished business-a way of doing business un-
known to Parliment, or to Congress. or to
any State Legislature. But it came up, and,
without question, was referred to a special
committee called the committee on the con-
stitution. In addition to the committee hav-
ing majority of ministers, three bishops
were added. AS result of their delibera-
tions the product Of the old commission, with
few unimportant modifica tions, was report
ed, with the recommendation that 1t pass.
NOT WHOLLY OBJECTIONABLE.
While much ofsthe body of the report Is
so out of harmony with the spirit of the age
that Col. j. w. Ray, member of that COM
mission, appointed in 1855. felt called upon
to present vigorous protest in the form of
a minority report, as whole, 1t is not in
trinsically Objectionable, except in the pro-
vision that its adoption and the adoption OF
all subsequent amendments must command
majority of three-fourths OF all
the travelling preachers, without the
slightest recognition of the laity at any
point, thus giving to one-fourth and one Of
the travelling preachers the power to veto
any measure that might be favored by three
fourths of the travelling preachers, less one,
and the entire laity. tThis un-American fea-
ture was vigorously but Intellectually op-
posed by the laity on the committee AS a
last resort they presented a minority report,
| which confines it's objection to the single
proposition to submit its adoption to the
ministers alone They proposed that this
new constitution-new only in the sense that
many a boys new pants are new, being
made out of his fathers old pants with only
enough new goods in them to make the sew
| eral parts hold together-and all subsequent
/ amendments to it should be submitted also
| to the lay electoral conferences and get a
! three-fourths majority there also. This
1 proposition was, of course, voted down, but
| its discussion called out from Bishop Merrill,
| the great constitution expounder. some ad-
missions and contradictions which would not
| be tolerated a moment among men of the
| world-for instance, when a layman suggest
| ed that the laymen might defeat the report
| by calling for a vote by orders, as 1t certain
| ly could not command majority of them.
| but 1t is unconstitutional to vote by orders
| on a question of amending the constitution,
| as two-thirds of the General Conference
would carry a measure without regard to
/ ORDERS" said the Bishop. In this case. of
| course, laymen are counted, but when 1t
] was proposed 20 count the vote of laymen
| on the concurrence in proposed amend
| ment they could not be counted, therefore,
| Bishop Merrill contended that the scheme
| OF the laymen was unconstitutional. 1t Is
| easy to see that these two propositions do
| not consist, except that they are consistent
with the purpose Of some preachers to allow
| laymen the least possible influence in church
affairs.
| One of the most important amendments
| of the Discipline made during the entire ses-
| sion was that which modified the rule
| concerning conference boundaries as to
make the wishes of laymen more potent
| than they have ever been---another step in
| the right direction. 1t cuts all that net
| work of red tape which was designed TO
make a change impossible. The question
| at issue was sought to be evaded by bring
| ing I'D first whatsis known as the con-
stitution of the General Conference instead
| of the constitution OF the church. 1t pro-
| ceeded well enough until 1t reached the
| method of electing lay delegates TO the
| lay electoral conference. AT this point a
| layman moved TO amend so that the mem
| bers should elect the delegates instead OF
! the quarterly conference. This brought 10
/ the front the question at issue The tactics
| of the morning TO lay this on the table, so
| as to cut Off debate, was tried In vain, and
l. the discussion proceeded, calling out the
| most intense opposition on the part of some
! of the old stagers. but a surprising number
| of the ministers were in favor of the
amendment TO allow the members to elect
| instead OF the quarterly conference. The
| laymen were practically unit for the
| amendment. One strong argument against
| the amendment was an appeal 10 the con-
| ference 10 reject II, lest the several annual
| conferences reject IL
i On the final vote the amendment was lost
| by vote of 1S9 for and 1913 against. sur
/ prising gain on everything In Methodist
history; out IL will have another inning.
| The most extraordinary meeting ever hell
| In America, X not In the world. since the day
OF Pentecost, when 80 many different ma
tionalittes heard in their own angua2
wherein they were born the wonderful wordi