Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1902-11-19
THEN THE DIE WAS CAST.

The die was cast when DR.. Garland
| took issue with the report. Chairman
! Talbot explained. His talk was quiet
! and conservative. There was no tinSe of
! feeling in anything he said.
=! He stated that the Committee on Pub
| fishing Interests had been impressed by
| a remark of Dr. r. J. Bignam's Publis.:-
ing House agent that book had more
| influence frequently than an individual,
| and they felt that the same was applca-
BILE to a paper He said that repre-
sentative OF Advocate had appeared be-
fore the committee The question was
asked: rs the Advocate meeting our
church needs?" A minister from Dan
Vile. he said, one from Lynchburg. two
from Richmond, and one from Ports
mouth. declared to the committee that it
was not.
Mr.. Talbot said he had approached
twenty ministers and with one exception
they stated that the paper was not meet
ing the demands upon it.
Out of 1000 Methodists in a city in this
State, layman tolu me-, said Mr.. Tai
bolt. that there were only forty SUBJ
scribers to the Advocate
HAD PROCEEDED DELIBERATELY.
Mr.. Talbot said that the committee
had spent several days bordering over
the matter. They were convinced from
the evidence offered that the Richmond
Christian Advocate was not meeting the
demands of the church. 1t seemed to be
unwilling to take the initiative in the
great aims Of the conference during the
past five years, such as the Methodist
Orphanage, the Twentieth Century Fund,
and the proposed endowment Of Ran
dolph-Macon College.
He did not answer directly DR.. Car
lands u11aStiDn the Gaming nj
control He stated that while pages OF
the Advocate had been placed at the dis
posal of those were leading the great
| movements in the church, that was not
| what was wanted. The committee be-
lieved that the church wanted the brains
and ability of editorial leadership. From
a lack of this on the Advocate the COM
mittee could rot recommend the Advo-
cate.
He explained that the purpose of the
committee in recommending that the
committee Of five be chosen by ballot was
to secure a free expression of opinion
from the conference.
The committee thus chosen would mere
" look over the field during the coming
year and report a plan to the next con
ference with a recommendation for its
adoption.
Rev. B. F. Lipscomb contended that
the Advocate was not in touch with the
sentiment Of the Church along lines of
development and made one of the
strongest speeches heard during the con-
ference.
Mr.. John P. Branch argued stoutly
against the committees report, and his
frank statements and virulent attack
on the report was the, source of no little
commotion in the body.
Among those who spoke in behalf of
the report We're Rev. W. a. Christian
and Rev. w. ". Royal, while Rev. H,
NJ. Hope and Rev. George w. Wray
spoke against it.
Rev. r. T Wilson offered a substitute
affecting the manner in which the com
mittee Of five should be appointed, but
it went down in defeat.
Cries of Question were continually
heard during the heated portion of the
one an opportunity to speak on the sub
iect. and there were many who We're
ready to accept his indulgence.
The other important items in the re-
port Of the Committee on Publishing In
terests We're the following:
'Resolved. That we endorse the Nash
Vile Advocate. the organ Of the Church,
South, as being ia every way worthy.
and urge it's claims upon preacher and
people. In the same way we mention the
Methodist Review and Epworth Era. as
we'll our missionary and Sunday
school literature. and all other publica-
lions of our house.
That request the Bishop to ap-
point Rev. II. NJ. Hope managing editor.
Rev. T. s. Leitch field editor of the Bal
timore and Richmond Christian Advo-
cate