Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1902-11-19
IDR, PAPER.
THE CHR1sT1AN ADVOCATE UNDER
FIRE ON THE FLOOR OF THE
CONFERENCE.
Mr.. BRANcH'ss PLAIN WORDS.
Rlchmond Iayman Say. Conferences
Want. Paper without It. Debt,.
THE DEBATE WAS VERY WARM.
ro1lowed Report which Reeor.-
mendcd Appointment of Commits
tee to Bring Advocate More D,.
rectIy Under the Control of the
conference.-the. j. Powell Garland
strongly Oppose the Proposition.
Richmond Lnyman Says Conference
Wants Paper without It's Debts.

One phrase in the report Of a COM
mittee yesterday afternoon prectpitated
the greatest debate that has been held
in the Virginia Annual Conference Of the
Methodist Church for many years.
The storm centre Of the cyclone debate
that hit the Conference yesterday was
| the Richmond Christian Advocate, or,
rather. the Richmond- Baltimore Christian
| Advocate.
The ablest delegates In the Conference,
| ministerial and lay. lined up for and
against the Advocate, and from O'Clock
I, in the afternoon to $3.50. the Conference
| was in controversial monsoon that
swept to and fro. and only spent itself
| in an unsettled adjournment.
Up to yesterday, placid and serene, save
| for discussion of no little length and
spirit yesterday morning on the question
of continuing minister in the itinerant
! work Of the Church, the Conference has
dealt almost exclusively with routine
| matters There has been nothing TO
ruHie the feathers of the Conference du-
ring the past four, or five days, but an
'.undercurrent OF feeling" that has been
percolating through the Conference for
some time came to the surface during the
afternoon session yesterday. and broke
out in geyser Of torrential debate that
was only temporarily checked by the cap
| Of adjournment.
The Committee on Public Interests gave
its report yesterday afternoon through
| the chairman, Mr.. Frank Talbot. OF
Danville 1t was rather an innocent-
! sounding report, mild, conservative, ana
peaceful in its wording. but 1t contained
| a living germ. and DR.. j. Powell Garland
put it under process OF cultivation
when he put 1t In the test-tube Of his
| critical analysis.
| To be concise, the committee did not
recommend the Advocate as the Official
organ of the Conference, and this failure
| to recommend, contrary to the tlme-hon-
/ ored custom of the Conference, was but
] the ssteppine-stone to another ;Ssue that
brought to the front the factional diher-
ences of the Conference.
Control OF the Advocate.
The real meat of the debate was an
I i.en1 in the reror! recommending the ap-
| , ointncnt vi q committee of five to be
! chosen by ballot, who should devise
| sone plan to bring the Advocate more
| directly under the control OF the confer
! ence
The last four words in the above
| sentence we're the tissue In the meat ror
| they mean that there Is a large element
| III tic conference that does not feel that
the Richmond Christian Advocate meets
| the ftJrands IT the Methc dist church In
sVirginia rs an official church organ
Tie trends of the Advocate and of DR..
j.. J I.afferty. Its editor took up the
cu,lgels in behalf Of the paper and welded
tlem with f.,cc and effect. But the other
side vas EQUALLY strong and knocks were
| given and received in turn.
| Had Been Brewing.
| Tnc contest between the Advocate and
! tile sup1'n' trrs of its editorial policy has
! been brewing for more than a day. 1t
! reached it's crisis <~erday, and the end
| will not come until to-day. No question
| of church doctrine was involved in the
| discussion yesterday. 1t was simply
question of whether the Advocate repre-
sented the true interest of the church IN
| its progressive steps of development. 1t
was a clash between friends, and conse-
| quently vigorous one.
The report Of the committee was
neither adopted nor defeated. 1t was
! partly compromised, and then deferred
for final action till to-day.
! The compromise was effected through
| a consultation between the members of
the Committee on Publishing Interests
| dNQ LII. Od1tdiIu, anu IL WdS iLdL tiIe
wording of the item in question should
| be changed to read "into more intimate
relations with the conference" " instead Of
under control Of the conference"
The debate brought to the front two
| able debaters-Rev B. F. Lipscomb.
representing the anti-Advocate element.
who wished to adopt the committees
| report, and DR.. j. Powell Garland, who
| led the forces supporting the Advocate.
He was supported by Mr.. John P.
Branch, of this city, who argued In
style that may be said to have come
straight from the shoulder. Mr.. Branch
| old not mince words He called a spade
a spade and became so direct in his talk.
| throwing aside all platitudes and con.
cealment of inten. that Rev. W. w.
Royal. in the midst of the warm debate.
| arose to a question of personal privilege
| and said that he would protest against
| the tnsinuations made against the con-
| ference by Brother Branch's remarks.
Mr. Branch,s Charges.
Mr.. Branch in his characteristic, blunt
style said that the conference wanted to
| get possession Of the Advocate withou,
assuming the obligations of the paper, /,
| that the proposition OF the Committee on
/ Publishing Interests to have q committee
/ of five chosen by ballot was a reflection
| upon the presiding officer. Bishop Dun
] can; that the committee was Inconsistent
i in recommending the committee Of flve
/ to devise plan to bring the Advocate
/ into more intimate relations with the
\ conferences and at the Same time n re-