The Birmingham age-herald., 1924-09-28
DR. J. s. FRAZIER
 HITS MITIGATION OF M. E. CHURCHES
Selma Presiding Elder Says Vote Of Laymen
 Would Defeat Plan

T rdZer 1OuRnC the unulcaI1On plan al the recent Chattanooga conference, and will continue this fight at future ses sions. He asserts that the fusion would create new, rivalry instead of promoting unity says the cotton states are overwhelmingly opposed to the plan and urges that the laymen of the church be given a chance to vote or the question before definite and final ac tion is taken.
 Adoption of this plan," says Dr. Frazer, would be a tacit confession by the NJ. E. Church, south, that it is not capable of measuring up to it's re- responsibilities. in its own territory, and that the south is legitimate missionary territory for the northern branch of the church.
 Dr. Frazer quotes a number of emi- neRt Methodists in all sections of the country and predicts the ultimate defeat of the plan. His statement follows in full :
 Objections Warranted
 The objections which have been raised against the proposed plan of unifica- tion are. in the main, warranted. The most serious defect-a defect which may bring disastrous consequences to our church-is the legalizing of the work of the NJ. B. Church in the territory al- ready occupied by the M. E. Church, south. thereby giving the Northern Church every advantage.
 "In the picturesque and expressive language of Rev. Bob Shuler; Juris- diction No. 1 covers Jurisdiction No. like a blanket To adopt this plan is tacit confession on the part of the NJ hof pablo of measuring up to it's responsi- Utilities in its own territory, and that the south is legitimate missionary terri tory for the NJ. E. Church.
 ITO allow two Methodist congrega- tions, in the same city, within a city block of each other, to remain indefi- nitely in separate Jurisdictions as the plan does, is incongruous. and to name such an arrangement Union is absurd. As Bishop Ainsworth, in strikingly epigramatic sentence, says. It legalizes the illegal.' To authorize the two churches to carry on the same kind of work in the same territory under diff ferentr jurisdictions, is to create new rivalries and foster new contentious in stead of promoting unity and good feel ing. It will be overlapping stamped with an official seal of approval Such is the view of many who rank among the best intellects of Southern Methodism The statement that the proposed plan of unification was drafted by a. southern man or southern men adds nothing to the intrinsic merits of thep ian. Its geographical origin is be- side the question. But, since it has been brought into the. discussion, let us see whether it is as much a south ern' plan as a northern plan. Ob- viously not, inasmuch as every member of the joint commission on unification from the NJ. E. church voted for it, while all against were southern votes. Likewise. the plan was approved by a practically unanimous vote of the Gen eral Conference of the NJ. E. church, while a very considerable and influen- tial minority voted against it at Chattanooga. It is rather remarkable that this southern plan should have such unanimity of approval in the north and so much opposition in the south.
 Plan Inadequate
 "In addition to the manifest made quacy of the plan it is unjust to force it's consummatiOn without the free con sent of the membership of our church.
 
 ner of Amarillo Texas, offered at the Chattanooga conference resolution omitted from the published minutes of the conference, the Daily Christian Ad- vocate. to submit the plan of unifica- tion to the membership of the church. It was promptly voted down. Why: The proposal was fair and feasible. It was argued by those objecting to this resolution that the process of unifica- tion would go forward through the prop or channels, and that the Turner resO- lution was unnecessary. But would a plebescite have blocked the progress of unification flowing through the proper channels? What possible objection could there be to submitting it to peo- pie? Do the advocates of unification fear the voice of the people? Do they credit the people with small intelli- genee? Do they consider their opinions worthless? Are they to be denied the chance to express their opinions on the most vital question which has been before the church for eighty years Are their rights in the church only the right of making contributions to the church's finance? A well known lay man said recently; We laymen are important when money is to be raised.
 This plan should not in all justice 20 through until the members ot our church have expressed themselves Tn a definite and formal manner. More over, is there sufficient sentiment among our people to justify unifica' tion? Statements to the effect that the border is overwhelmingly in favor Oi the plan, have been frequently and free ly made. Later reports from authen tic sources deny this. Is the border SC enthusiastically in favor of the plan when such men as Dr. Briggs of Mis- souri, Dr. Shulcr of Los Angeles and Dr. Nelson of the Pacific conference oppose it? Indeed, from every border conference voices are raised against thC plan.
 But the people of the border are clamoring for it, demanding that thi' sinful competition cease, we are told Are they? In the last issue of th' Christian Advocate. a minister of tho NJ. E. church, south, who has been or the Pacific coast since 1S69, writes as follows: 1t is not difficult to dis cover how the great body of our peo pie feel. I attend Trinity church, Lo Angeles. which has one-fourth of th' membership of the Pacific conference and I do not hesitate to say that 9' per cent of the more than 5000 mem bers of Trinity are opposed to thu present plan
 Again, as to the border: The Bal timore conference is a border confer ence. We are told by those who know that the laymen and the preachers il that conference will vote against thu plan, and it is now predicted that thu Baltimore conference will not only reject it by constitutional vote bu by a large majority.
 Says Laymen Oppose
 Now. what of the cotton states al. c.f 1li..tI.int h,