Evening star., 1925-03-27
APPEAL IS FILED
IN M. {. UNITY CASE
Decision Sought on Bishops
! Ruling on Method of TAX
inq Conference Vote.

in the baltimore Annual Conference
of the NJ. Z. Church South, when for-
NAL appeal was filed to the College
of Bishops asking for the episcopal
decision" on three questions invoiV-
sng the procedure employed MONDAY
bv Btshop Warren A. Gambler OF
Atlanta and the conference in re-
5ecting unification, by a yea and nay
vote after 1t had been previously de-
cided to case secret ballots.
The appeal was presented on the
floor Of the conference at the Mount
Vernon Place Church by two lawyers,
w. w. MILAN of this city and Judge
r. D. Newman of Woodstock, va.
Both these appellants were lay dele
gates from the Baltimore conference
10 the General Conference in Chatta-
nooga last July, and have been
among the most prominent unifica-
tionists. Judge Newman shortly after
presentation was reelected as con
ference lay leader"
Procedure of Appeal.
Procedure to be followed by the
appeal will be for 1T to go through
the hands of Bishop Gambler first. He
will pass upon IL and must then, un-
der the laws of the church, forward
It to the College of Bishops, which
will meet in Nashville in May When
stand as church law. What effect
this may have retroactively on the
action of the conference here in re-
jscting unifcation no one was willing
to forecast.
At the same time, it was learned
that the Baltimore conference dele
cation to the general conference last
July voted so per cent in favor Of
unification, whereas the conference
last Monday rejected the issue.
The two appellants this morning
also fled a resolution questioning the
right of three lay delegates to vote,
on the ground they had not been
members of the church for the re-
quired six years. The three dele gates,
it was said had voted against unifica-
tion. They were: d. o. Lauterback
and F. B. Cooper, from the Rocking
ham district, and Mrs. l.. H. Rich
creek of the Moorefield district.
Questions I'm Appeal.
The appeal to the college OF bishops
which outlines in detail the procedure
questioned, explains that "the General
Conference of the NJ. z. Church South
recommended to the annual conferences
of said church that the vote upon the
plan of unification be taken by ballot.
"a motion was made" says the ap-
peal. that such vote in the Baltimore
Conference be taken by yeas and nays
A substitute for this motion was Of
fered providing that the vote be taken
by ballot, and was entertained by the
char and put to the body with the state
nlent that 1t would, IL adopted, be SUBJ
ject to the right of one-flfth of the body
10 demand yea and nay vote.
The substitute was carried by a vote
Of 147 to los, and was by the chair de-
clared carried. When the question was
called upon the plan of unifcation a de-
mand for the yeas and nays was made
supported by more than one-fifth of the
body. The point of order was made that
the conference had already fixed its own
rule, and provided for a vote by ballot
The chair overruled the point, and on
appeal from his decision was sustained
by the conference and required the vote
to be taken by yeas and nays.
Decision Vow Requested.
"on the, basis OF the foregoing
stat ment the following questions Of
law are propounded and the episcopal
decision thereon respectfully request
ed
Il. 1t is competent for an annual
conference, in accordance with the
law OF the NJ. E. Church South, to de-
termine for itself by vote in advance
OF taking action on a particular ques-
adopt in taking the vote on such ques-
ton shall be by ballot or by yeas
and nays?.
y. When motion Is made in an
annual conference to take the vote
on the specified question by ballot is
it competent for the presiding officer
In putting that motion to a. vote to
declare that IL it be adopted that
action will still be subject to the
right of one-fifth of the body 70 de-
mand a vote by yeas and nays on
said specified question?
Competency of Omcers.
%, When an annual conference has
voted, l47 to 106, in favor of taking
the 'ote on the proposed plan of
unification by ballot, as recommended
by the General Conference, and there
after a call is made, supported by
more than one-fifth of the members
of such conference, that such vote
he by yeas and nays, is IT competent
for the presiding officer upon such
call, in the absence of any motion
TO reconsider the action by which
the vote by ballot was ordered to
require that the vote be taken by
yeas and nays?"
In regard to the three questioned
votes by anti-unifica tionists Judge
votes could "be stricken from the
record before the vote on ratification
of the plan of unification is certified
10 the secretary of the College of
Bishops"
Routine business of the conference
occupied the remainder of the morn
ing, but in the anterooms and cor
ridors most or the discussion ragged
about the unification issue. Instead
int
seemed TO be rising, although the
conference acted on it's first morning
Some Criticize Bishop.
Bishop Gambler was freely criti-
cized by many unificationists in dis
cussinS the matter, several claiming
he should have left the matter for a
vote after ministers had been given
their assignments for the next year
These assignments will not be made.
until Monday. Anti-unificationists de-
Tended the bishop and considered the
issue closed.
How the delegates form the Balti-
more Conference to the General Con-
ference last July voted was revealed
here today for the first time in detail.
The only two delegates from this
conference, which voted against uni
fCation in the General Conference
were ministers-Dr. L. L. Woolf OF
Staunton. Va, a leader among the
nti-unificstionists, and DR.. H NJ
Canter of Salem, who is secretary of
the local conference.
The ten others. including four min
listers and six laymen who voted in
favor of unlfication, included: Judge
Il. d Newman of Woodstock, Va w.
w MILAN and w. F. Hummer of
Washington; L. w. Davis of Balti-
more, j. Harry Bryan of Staunton and
w r. Cross Of Salem, Va, all lay
men, and these minister's: Dr. ]. How