Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-04-21

ed by four members of the commit.
zee In favor, and by one, Rev. D. B.
Holt, -. D., the chairman in the mi
norlty against. The majority group
Is Kew. A. G. Goddard, Rev. J. M.
Arters. Rev. L. g. March, and Rev.
A. l. Oliver.
Cites Committee Differences
In his specifications of opposition
10 the report and to the proposed
changes, Rev. Ralph F. Lowe in his
communication to Bishop Anderson
calls attention to the fact that DR..
Holt, the chairman, and Most ju-
diciaily-minded man in the Confer
ence", signed against, and further
that he is informed that the Rev,
A. |. Oliver of Auburn, whose name
Is included in the favorable report
was not even present at the commit
tee meeting when the plan was de-
vised.
Superintendent Lowe further pro-
tests the inclusion on the committee
OF one District Superintendent, Rev.
L. G. March Of Rockland, to the ex-
clusion of another district superin-
tendent who is equally affected. This
says superintendent Lowe, "spoils
, the judicial character of the commit
tee"
"Shoe- String District" is the OPP
ponents' characterization If the new
Lewiston District, which would be
created il the report were adopted
and executed. Rev. Lowe makes a
stirring plea for the retention of
! the identity and name of the Angus
ia District and a continuance of the
splendid district loyalty
Letter of Protest
The letter by the Superintendent
of the Augusta District to Bishop
is self explanatory and is as follows
Bishop w. F. Anderson,
SOL Boylston Street.
Boston. Mass.
Dear Bishop Anderson:
Last week Brother J.. NJ. Arters
mailed me copy of the proposed re-
arrangements of districts in the Maine
Conference. Not until today have
been able to ascertain certain facts
with reference to the committee and
its meeting; and there are some other
facts that 1 have not yet been able to
examine.
II emphatically oppose the majority
report for the following reasons:
81. The committee as originally
named l find no fault with. There
were no district superintendent on
it at all. Brother A. E. Morris, my
successor at Augusta, was one of the
original members. After his death
Brother L. G. March. district superin-
tendent of the Rockland district, was
in some way appointed. At least he
was on the committee. 1 object
-tpC ,Cr1x 1A nf q
district superintendent who was to be
committee, to the exclusion of another
superintendent who is equally affected
or more so-spoils the judicial char
acter of the committee. This arrange
ment is Just as illogical as putting
the prosecuting attorney on the jury.
LAS host of the last conference at
Augusta / was unable to watch all the
business closely and l knew nothing
about the redistricting proposition till
some time later. -
mo one told me of the date of the
committee meeting or asked me to at
tend it. On the day it met in Port
land | CHANGED to meet Brother March
on the train and he told me where he
was going and asked if l had any sug-
gestions. 1t was then too late for
me to go; and, as had not thought of
the matter, [ had no suggestions worth
anything. / did not like the looks of
having one interested district superin-
tendent on a judicial committee, but
| did not wish to be rude to Brother
March and SO said nothing.
Now 1 submit that on the very
face of 1t, before entering into the
merits of the proposed plan, I ought
l.
Brother March. And on that ground
I ask that the plan of the committee
be not accepted. If the matter should
come up again I request that an en-
tirely now committee be appointed and
that We four district superintendent
be members of it.
Not Present at Meeting
2. The report has the names of
four members in favor and one, the
chairman, DIR. D. B. Holt, against. One
of those printed as in favor is that of
A. I. Oliver, Auburn; but DR.. Holt,
chairman of the committee and the
most judicially-minded man in the
conference, in a letter to me this
morning says that Oliver was not
present at the committee meeting. 1
cannot help wondering how his name
appears printed at the bottom Of the
report.
"3. We have some real problems
down here to consider. I do not think
that a superintendent work Is done
when he has had so many quarterly
conferences and made himself gener-
ally agreeable. He should constantly
be studying how to make his territory
as efficient as possible. 1t so happens
that in the territory now proposed to
be put into new district are three
towns where religious conditions are
most unfavorable. Two Of them will
be taken care of by Methodism or not
at all. / have given much time and
thought to this territory and think
that l am on. the verge of a possible
solution. If the report is accepted,
my plans come to naught. l do not
claim that this should stand in the
way of a larger good for the confer
ence, but l do say that in the face of
this and other considerations this re-
port should be overwhelmingly con-
yincing.
Possibly some revision would be
well, but isn't 1t about time, as Bishop
Hughes said near the end Of the last
General Conference, 20 stop tinker
ing and go to work.?
District Loyalty
a. AS districts go, there is a good
deal Of loyalty and pride in the Au-
gusta District. AS you may recall,
the Augusta District takes more
lions Heralds per member than any
other district in Methodsm. Little
Fairfield Center with only Is mem
bers takes II lions Heralds!
10 ~