Phoenix tribune., 1924-01-30
A. M. E. DELEGATES
REFUSE TO ENDORSE
BISHOP HI. B. PARKS
Especial to The Tribune)

Church, which met here last week,
endorsed the Rev. DIR. William H.
Peck. of St. Louis, for Bishop.
These delegates were elected by
their several conferences, composed
of ministers and laymen, and will be
the official spokesman for the Fifth
District at the General Conference,
which is to lie held at Louisville,
Ky, in May.
DR.. Peck is pastor of st. James
A. NJ. e. church at ST. Louis, and a
brother of DR.. F. Jesse Peck, Presi-
dent of Western University, Quin-
daro, Kans. In allowing his name
endorsement for the high honors, DR..
Peck stated that he would be gov
erned by the will of the delegates
present, but Rev. W. H. Thomas of
Denver, whose name was also pre-
sented, stated that he was a candi-
date if he was endorsed, but would
not regard the vote, if hew as de-
feated He was defeated
Bishop Parks Failed
Perhaps a greater display of cour-
age has never been witnessed among
ministers who are directly under a
bishop than was shown by delegates
when an attempt was made to put
over an endorsement for the return
of Bishop H. B. Parks to the dis
trict. With the Bishop presiding.
looking every man in the face and
using all the generalship that has
come to him through years of ex-
perience. Bishop Parks failed to re-
ceive the endorsement of the dele
gates.
Everything seemed to be going
smoothly for the asking at the Cen
eral Conference for his return, when
the goodly plans were completely up
set by the objection of Rev. c. S.
Bowman, of the North Missouri Con-
ference, who styled himself "the
smallest integral of a conference"
The climax. which was not wholly
unexpected and was forecast in the
occurrences of Tuesday, came when
Rev. ]. F. Griffin, pastor OF Ebenezer
Church. Kansas City, offered a mo-
ton would carry without opposition
action of the several conferences and
indorse the asking of the return of
Bishop Parks by the General Confer
ence. 1t seemed as though the mo-
tioin would carry without opposition
in spite of the declarations made
Tuesday in the absence of the Bishop
when Rev. Bowman announced his
opposition. He told the delegates
plainly that he was not in favor of
the motion nor of the Bishops return
and when he had finished there was
no doubt as to where he stood.
DR.. W. H. Peck, OF st. Louis, and
DR.. w. H. Thomas, Denver, each
spoke upon the motion following Rev
Bowman. Bishop Parks had express
ed surprise at finding that there was
opposition to his return and that it
was an issue. DR.. Peck's talk was
from an informal point of view in
answer to the Bishops expressed
surprise. The length of the Bishops
tenure over this district, the peculiar
nature of the bishopric and the fact
that the assignment of the Bishops
is in the hands of committee rather
than in the hands of the Bishops
Council were reasons given by Dr.
Peck as to why his return was an
issue. For the good of the Bishop
himself and the church as well, Dr.
Peck stated that he doubted whether
the Bishop should return to the dis
trict even though his return were en-
dorsed by every conference in it.
In stating his views, Rev. Osborne
said that he had been told by certain
men that they controlled the
Bishop in matters of appointments
and favors. This the Bishop disput-
ed and branded as an "unmitigated
lie" but neither accuser nor disput-
ant pressed the ISSUE
Opposition of a definite kind is
said to have first developed in st.
Louis on the occasion of the election
of delegates from that conference.
The motion to reaffirm the en-
dorsements given by the conferences
to the return of Bishop Parks was
tabled without vote out of defer
ence to the feelings of the Bishop
on the one hand and on the other it
was accepted as a relief from being
brought to showdown.
1t was vtoed that the discussion
over the endorsement of the Bishop
be stricken from the minutes and ex
cluded from the secretary's report to
the church press.