Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1924-05-27
BISHOP GAMBLER NOT IN FAVOR
OF MITIGATION PLAN, He SAYS;
TERMS DANGEROUS" TO ALL

power to call a general conference
if they judge it necessary
Failed to Amend Properly
''In 1856 the northern general con-
ference attempted to amend their
constitution at this point; but it fail
ed by inadvertence to submit the
amendment to the annual confer
ences, as is required alike in both
churches for the adoption of consti-
tutional amendments. Having no oc-
casion to call a general conference,
this fact was overlooked until the
year 1900 when the amendment was
found to be null and void. In that
year, after it had been approved by
the annual conferences, it was legal
ly amended to read as follows:
The general superintendent, or
a majority Of them, by and with the
advice of two-thirds of all the annual
conferences, shall have the power to
call an extra session of the general
conference at any time
I'm 1865 the Southern General con-
ference also undertook to amend the
same constitutional provision of
1903, and it too failed by inadvert-
ence to submit the proposed amend
ment to the annual conferences. And
now it is discovered that the amend
ment has never been legally adopted,
and that the law of 1903 therefore
remains unchanged 1T differs very
widely from the amendment adopted
by the Northern General conference
in 1900.
Both the northern and the south
ern general conferences, for many
years, inadvertence, printed in
their books of discipline these consti-
tutional provisions which had never
been legally enacted. The northern
church lived from 1856 to 1900 for
ty-four years-before the error of its
general conference was brought to
notice and corrected.
Error Never Corrected
Acting on the same subject in
the same unlawful way in 1866, the
southern church has never had the
error corrected, although more tan
1lfty years have elapsed. 1t has not
until now had any occasion for call
ing an extra session of the general
conference, and so it has overlooked
the laundering action of the general
conference of 1856. But if the amend
ment which was passed by the gem
eral conference of that year had been
submitted to the annual conferences,
and lawfully adopted it also, like the
original act of 1903, differs widely
from the amendment made in the
lawful way by the northern general
conference in 1900 The amendment
proposed by the southern general
conference. but never submitted to
the annual conferences, is found in
paragraph 81 of the Book of Dis
cipline of 1922, and reads as follows:
The bishops, or a majority of
the annual conferences, shall have
authority to call general con-
ference at any time, If they judge
it necessary
This is null and void because
never approved by the annual con-
ferences, from which it proposed to
take away the power given them by
the constitution of 1908.
Many other points of difference
besides these essential points will be
discovered by an examination and
comparison of the books of discipline
of the two churches.
Again, the two churches are not
one in spirit.
NEEDLES With Politics
NEEDLES with political matters, as
the southern church does not, and
ought not to do.
During their general conference
OF this year, 1924 at least three
committees have been sent to Wash
ington on political missions. and all
sorts of resolutions concerning po-
litical matters have been brought
forward, including one about what
is called the Dyer anti-lynching
bill which is an unjust and uncon-
stitutlonal bill, aimed particularly at
the south.
'(2) In article III of the plan of
unification.' the name of the church
is left undetermined. That para
graph reads as follows:
The name of the church shall
be name to be selected by the first
general conference of the united
church,
Whatever may be the name de-
termined by the first General con-
ference of the united church. if the
plan of unification' were adopted,
we know it would not be the name
of our church, it would probably
be the name of the northern church.
Such a name would tend to promote
the policy of 'disintegration and alb
sorption' of our church, which has
been persistently pursued since
1S4S. when the northern general
conference formally and utterly re-
pudiated the plan of separation,
which was adopted in 1914.
'(Sl Consideration of article III of
the plan will show a most serious
defect in that it fails to meet the
real purpose of genuine unifica ton
by failing to eliminate overlapping
of work and to remove irritating
friction. 1t leaves the two churches
just as they are, and have been,
with respect to their territory and
membership, and. thereby. it legal
ICES and legitimatizes the invasion
of our territory by the northern
church. and nullifies all acreeme It's
of fraternity which have been
adopted from 1874 until the present
time.
Text OF Article
The article is as follows:
Section /. Jurisdiction number
! one shall comprise all the churches,
/ annual conferences, and missions
/ now constituting the Methodist
| Episcopal church and any other such
| conferences and missions as may
hereafter be organized by its juris-
! dlctlonal conference with the ap
prevail of the general conference.
/ Section >. Jurisdiction number
/ two shall comprise all the churches,
annual conferences, mission confer
euces. and missions now constituting
the Methodist Episcopal church.
south, and any other such confer