CHAPTER XXVIII.

Sister Sylvester Bobbet and I had been voted on es the ones best

qualified to lead off in the arjeous and hazerdous enterprize.

And though we deeply felt the honor they wuz a-heapin' on to us, yet

es it hes been, time and agin, in other high places in the land, if it

hadn't been fer duty that wuz a-grippin' holt of us, we would gladly

have shirked out of it and gin the honor to some humble but worthy

constituent.

Fer the lengths of paper wuz extremely long, the ceilin' fearfully high,

and oh! how lofty and tottlin' the barells looked to us. And we both on

us, Sister Sylvester Bobbet and I, had giddy and dizzy spells right on

the ground, let alone bein' perched up on barells, a-liftin' our arms up

fur, fur beyond the strength of their sockets.

[Illustration: “WE FELT NERVED UP TO DO OUR BEST.”]

But duty wuz a-callin' us, and the other wimmen also, and it wuzn't for

me, nor Sister Sylvester Bobbet to wave her nor them off, or shirk out

of hazerdous and dangerous jobs when the good of the Methodist Meetin'

House wuz at the Bay.

No, with as lofty looks as I ever see in my life (I couldn't see my own,

but I felt 'em), and with as resolute and martyrous feelin's as ever

animated two wimmen's breasts, Sister Sylvester Bobbet and I grasped

holt of the length of paper, one on each end on it, Sister Arvilly

Lanfear and Miss Henzy a-holdin' it up in the middle like Aaron and Hur

a-holdin' up Moses'ses arms. We advanced and boldly mounted up onto our

two barells, Miss Gowdy and Sister Sypher a-holdin' two chairs stiddy

for us to mount up on.

Every eye in the meetin' house wuz on us. We felt nerved up to do our

best, even if we perished in so doin', and I didn't know some of the

time but we would fall at our two posts. The job wuz so much more

wearin' and awful than we had foreboded, and we had foreboded about it

day and night for weeks and weeks, every one on us.

The extreme hite of the ceilin'; the slipperyness and fragility of the

lengths of paper; the fearful hite and tottlin'ness of the barells; the

dizzeness that swept over us at times, in spite of our marble efforts to

be calm. The dretful achin' and strainin' of our armpits, that bid fair

to loosen 'em from their four sockets. The tremenjous responsibility

that laid onto us to get the paper on smooth and onwrinkled.

It wuz, takin' it altogether, the most fearful and wearisome hour of my

hull life.

Every female in the room held her breath in deathless anxiety (about

thirty breaths). And every eye in the room wuz on us (about fifty-nine

eyes--Miss Shelmadine hain't got but one workin' eye, the other is

glass, though it hain't known, and must be kep).

Wall, it wuz a-goin' on smooth and onwrinkled--smiles broke out on every

face, about thirty smiles--a half a minute more and it would be done,

and done well. When at that tryin' and decisive moment when the fate of

our meetin' house wuz, as you may say, at the stake, we heard the sound

of hurryin' feet, and the door suddenly opened, and in walked Josiah

Allen, Deacon Sypher, and Deacon Henzy followed by what seemed to me at

the time to be the hull male part of the meetin' house.

But we found out afterwerds that there wuz a few men in the meetin'

house that thought wimmen ort to set; they argued that when wimmen had

been standin' so long they out to set down; they wuz good dispositioned.

But as I sez at the time, it looked to us as if every male Methodist in

the land wuz there and present.

They wuz in great spirits, and their means wuz triumphant and satisfied.

They had jest got the last news from the Conference in New York village,

and had come down in a body to disseminate it to us.

They said the Methodist Conference had decided that the seven wimmen

that had been stood up there in New York for the last week, couldn't

set, that they wuz too weak and fraguile to set on the Conference.

And then the hull crowd of men, with smiles and haughty linements, beset

Josiah to read it out to us.

So Josiah Allen, with his face nearly wreathed with a smile, a blissful

smile, but as high headed a one as I ever see, read it all out to us.

But he should have to hurry, he said, for he had got to carry the great

and triumphant news all round, up as fur as Zoar, if he had time.

[Illustration: “THE METHODIST CONFERENCE HAD DECIDED THAT WIMMEN WUZ

TOO WEAK TO SET.”]

And so he read it out to us, and as we see that that

breadth wuz spilte, we stopped our work for a minute and heard it.

And after he had finished it, they all said it wuz a masterly dockument,

the decision wuz a noble one, and it wuz jest what they had always said.

They said they had always known that wimmen wuz too weak, her frame wuz

too tender, she was onfitted by Nater, in mind and in body to contend

with such hardship. And they all agreed that it would be puttin' the men

in a bad place, and takin' a good deal offen their dignity, if the fair

sex had been allowed by them to take such hardships onto 'em. And they

sez, some on 'em, “Why! what are men in the Methodist meetin' house for,

if it hain't to guard the more weaker sect, and keep cares offen 'em?”

And one or two on 'em mentioned the words, “cooin' doves” and “sweet

tender flowerets,” as is the way of men at such times. But they wuz in

too big a hurry to spread themselves (as you may say) in this direction.

They had to hurry off to tell the great news to other places in

Jonesville and up as fer as Loontown and Zoar.

But Sister Arvilly Lanfear, who happened to be a-standin' in the door

as they went off, she said she heard 'em out as fer as the gate

a-congratilatin' themselves and the Methodist Meetin' House and the

nation on the decesion, for, sez they,

“Them angels hain't strong enough to set, and I've known it all the

time.”

And Sister Sylvester Gowdy sez to me, a-rubbin' herachin' armpits--

“If they are as beet out as we be they'd be glad to set down on

anything--a Conference or anything else.”

And I sez, a-wipin' the presperatin of hard labor from my forwerd,

“For the land's sake! Yes! I should think so.”

And then with giddy heads and strainin' armpits we tackled the meetin'

house agin.

[Illustration: The End]

PUBLISHERS' APPENDIX.

In view of the frequent reference, in this work, to the discussion in

and preceding the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church

of 1888, in regard to the admission of women delegates, the publishers

have deemed it desirable to append the six following addresses delivered

on the floor of the Conference during the progress of that discussion.

The General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church is the highest

legislative body of that denomination. It is composed of delegates, both

ministerial and lay, the former being elected by the Annual Conferences,

and the latter by Lay Electoral Conferences. The sessions of the General

Conference are held quadrennially.

Prior to the session held in May, 1888, in New York City, women

delegates were elected, one each, by the four following Lay Electoral

Conferences--namely, The Kansas Conference, The Minnesota Conference,

The Pittsburgh Conference, and The Rock River Conference. Protest was

made against the admission of these delegates on the ground that the

admission of women delegates was not in accord with the constitutional

provisions of the Church, embodied in what are termed the Restrictive

Rules. A special Committee on the Eligibility of Women to Membership in

the General Conference was appointed, consisting of seventeen members,

to whom the protest was referred. On May 3d the Committee reported

adversely to the admission of the four women delegates, the report

alleging “that under the Constitution and laws of the Church as they now

are, women are not eligible as lay delegates in the General Conference.”

From the discussion following this report, and lasting several days, the

following six addresses, three in favor of and three against the

admission of the women delegates, are selected and presented, with a few

verbal corrections, as published in the official journal of the

Conference.

ADDRESS OF REV. DR. THEODORE L. FLOOD.

I am in accord, in the main, with Dr. Potts and Dr. Brush in what they

have said on this question, unless it may be where my friend who last

spoke said that these ladies, these elected delegates to this body,

ought to be admitted. My judgment and my conscience before the

Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Restrictive Rules

is that these women elected by these Electoral Conferences are in this

General Conference.

Their names may not have been called when the roll was called, and yet

it was distinctly stated by the Bishop presiding that morning that they

would be called, and the challenges presented with their names; and

afterward demanded it, the names of these delegates who were not

enrolled with the others were called, and the protests were read. Their

names have been called as members of this body, and they are simply here

as “challenged” members. From that standpoint this question must be

discussed, and any disposition of this case under the circumstances must

be in this direction. These women delegates must be put out of this

General Conference if they are not granted the rights and privileges

of members here. It is not a question of “admitting” them. Before this

report, before the bar of history, we stand, and will be called upon to

vote and act, and millions of people will hold us responsible, and I

dare say that our votes will be recorded as to whether they shall be

“put out” or “stay in.”

Why, sir, the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church exists

for the ministry and membership of the Church. The ministry and the

membership of the Church do not exist for the government. The world was

made for man, and not man for the world. That is the fundamental idea

in the government of God, as He treats us as human beings. That is the

fundamental idea in the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church,

as we are enlisted in the support of that government as ministers

and members of the Church. Now under this system of ecclesiastical

government a time came in our history when we submitted a grave question

to the membership of the Church. It was not a question simply of

petition, asking the membership to send petitions up to the General

Conference. On the contrary, it was submitting a constitutional question

not simply to the male members of the Church, for that grand and noble

man of the Methodist Church, Dr. David Sherman of the New England

Conference, moved himself to strike out the word “male” from the report

of the Committee on Lay Delegation. It came to a vote, and it was

stricken out, two to one in the vote. When that was done, then the

General Conference of our Church submitted to the membership of the

Church the question of lay delegation. But back of the question of lay

delegation was as grave a question, and that was granting the right of

suffrage to the women of the Church. The General Conference assumed

the responsibility of giving to the women the right to vote. It may be

questioned this way; it may be explained that way; but the facts

abide that the General Conference granted to the women of the Church the

right to vote on a great and important question in ecclesiastical law.

Now if you run a parallel along the line of our government--and it has

often been said that there are parallels in the government of the United

States corresponding to lines of legislation and legislative action in

the government of the Church--you will find that the right of suffrage

in the country at the ballot-box has been a gradual growth. One of the

most sacred rights that a man, an American citizen, enjoys is the right

to cast a ballot for the man or men he would have legislate for him; and

for no trivial reason can that right, when once granted to the American

citizen, be taken away from him. Go to the State of Massachusetts, and

trace the history of citizen suffrage, and you find it commenced in this

way: First, a man could vote under the government there who was a member

of the Church. Next, he could vote if he were a freeholder. A little

later on he could vote if he paid a poll-tax. In the government, and

under the legislation of our Church, first the women were granted the

right to vote on the principle of lay delegation, not on the “plan”

of lay delegation, but on the “principle” of lay delegation. That was

decided by Bishop Simpson in the New Hampshire Conference, and by Bishop

Janes afterward in one of the New York Conferences. On the principle

of lay delegation, the women of the Church were granted the right of

suffrage; presently they appeared in the Quarterly Conference, to vote

as class-leaders, stewards, and Sunday-school superintendents; and it

created a little excitement, a feverish state of feeling in the Church,

and the General Conference simply passed a resolution or a rule

interpreting that action on the part of women claiming this privilege

in the Quarterly Conference as being a “right,” and it was continued.

Presently, as the right of suffrage of women passed on and grew, they

voted in the Electoral Conferences, and there was no outcry made against

it. I have yet to hear of any Bishop in the Church, or any presiding

elder, or any minister challenging the right of women to vote in

Electoral Conferences or Quarterly Conferences; and yet for sixteen

years they have been voting in these bodies; voting to send laymen here

to legislate; to send laymen to the General Conference to elect Bishops

and Editors and Book Agents and Secretaries. They come to where votes

count in making up this body; they have been voting sixteen years, and

only now, when the logical result of the right of suffrage that the

General Conference gave to women appears and confronts us by women

coming here to vote as delegates, do we rise up and protest. I believe

that it is at the wrong time that the protest comes. It should have come

when the right to vote was granted to women in the Church. It is sixteen

years too late, and as was very wisely said by Dr. Potts, the objection

comes not so much from the Constitution of the Church as from the

“constitution of the men,” who challenge these women.

Now, sir, another parallel. You take the United States Government just

after the war, when the colored people of the South, the freedmen of our

land, unable to take care of themselves, their friends, that had fought

the battles of the war, in Congress determined that they should be

protected, if no longer by bayonets and cannon, that they should

be protected by placing the ballot in their hands, and the ballot was

placed in the hands of the freedman of the South by the action of the

National Congress, Congress submitting a constitutional amendment to the

legislatures of the States; and when enough of them had voted in favor

of it, and the President had signed the bill, it became an amendment to

the Constitution of the United States, granting to the people of the

South, who had been disfranchised, the right of suffrage.

Now, what does the right of suffrage do? It carries with it the right

to hold office. Where women have the privileges of voting on the school

question, they are granted the privilege of being school directors,

holding the office of superintendents, and the restriction on them stops

at that point under statute law. If you go a little further you will

find that when the freedmen were enfranchised, and they sent men of

their own color to the House of Representatives, did that body say

“stop!” “we protest, you cannot come in because of illegality”? No. They

were admitted on the face of their credentials because they had first

been granted the right of suffrage. When men of their color went to the

United States Senate and submitted their credentials, they were not

protested against, but they were admitted as members of the United

States Senate on the face of their credentials. And why? Because

the right of suffrage granted to the freedmen of the South under a

constitutional amendment of the nation, carried with it the right of

the men whom we fought to free, and did free, in an awful war, to hold

office in the nation. Now, sir, you must interpret the law somewhat by

the spirit of the times in which you live. That is a mistaken notion

to say that you must always go to the men that made the law to get the

interpretation of it. If that were true, would it not always be wise

for legislators to give their affidavits and place on file their

interpretation of the law they had confirmed, and placed on the statute

books? There are legal gentlemen in this body who will tell you that it

goes for very little when you come to interpret law. And yet you will

find this to be true, that a law must be interpreted somewhat by the

spirit of the time in which you live. Why, twenty years ago, when the

General Conference handed the question of lay delegation down to the

Annual Conferences, and the members of our Church, there was not a

woman practising law in the Supreme Court of the United States. Go back

through the history of jurisprudence of this country and in England, and

you will find that it had never been known that a woman practised law in

the Supreme Court of this country or England. But to-day women have been

admitted to practise law in the Supreme Court of the United States. No

amendment to the Constitution of the United States had to be adopted

in order to secure this privilege for them. But this is true, that the

judges of the Supreme Court, by a more liberal interpretation of the

Constitution of the United States, said, “Women may be officers of the

Supreme Court, and may practise law there.” The same kind of a spirit,

in interpreting the Discipline and the Restrictive Rules of the

Discipline of the Church, will place these women delegates in this body

where they have been sent. The same thing is true of the Supreme Court

of Pennsylvania and in the Courts of Philadelphia. There is no way out,

as my judgment sees, and as my conscience tells me, since before the

government of God man and woman are equally responsible. There is no way

out of this dilemma for this General Conference, but to say that these

women delegates shall sit in this body, where they have been sent, and

where their names have been called.

Why, take the missionary operations. The Woman's Missionary Society is

to-day raising more money and doing more missionary work than the Parent

Missionary Society did fifty years ago. And yet men legislate concerning

the missionary operations of women, and give them no voice directly in

this body.

We bring up the temperance question here against license and in favor

of Prohibition, and we pass our resolutions after we have given our

discussions, and yet the Methodist Church has the honor of having in the

ranks of her membership--(Time called.)

ADDRESS OF REV. DR. JAMES M. BUCKLEY.

Mr. President, while the last speaker was on the floor, a modification

of a passage of Scripture occurred to me, “The enemy cometh in like

a flood, but I will lift up a standard against him.” It is somewhat

peculiar that he should begin by making a statement about one of the

most honored names in American Methodism, a statement that has been

published in the papers, and that nine tenths of this body knew as well

as he did. It must have been intended as a part of his argument, and I

regard it as of as much force as anything he said after it. But in

point of fact the question does not turn upon the person, but upon the

principle. I have received an anonymous letter containing the following

among other things, “Beware how you attack the holy cause of woman. Do

you not know that obstacles to progress are rem-o-o-v-e-d out of the

way?” The signature of that letter is ingenious. I cannot tell whether

it was a man or a woman, for it reads as follows, “A Lover of your Soul

and of Woman.” Now, Mr. President, the only candlestick that ought to be

removed out of its place is the candlestick that contains a candle that

does not burn the pure oil of truth. And I believe, sir, that with the

best of intentions the three speakers who have appeared have given us

three chapters in different styles of a work of fiction, and it is my

duty to undertake to show where they have slipped. The Apocrypha says,

“An eloquent man is known far and near; but a man of understanding

discerneth where he slippeth.” I have no claim to eloquence; never

pretended to have any; but I have a claim to some knowledge of Methodist

history, to some ability to state my sentiments, and to be without any

fear of the results, either present or prospective.

Now, Mr. President, you notice from my friends that if they cannot

command the judgment of the Conference they propose to say the women are

in, and defy us to put them out. I am sorry that my friend did not take

in the full significance of that. And they say that everybody who has

a certificate in form is in until he is put out. Why, they do not

discriminate between ordinary contested cases and a case where the

constitutional point is involved. If these women have a right here,

they have had it from the beginning by the Constitution. It is not a

contested case as to whether John Smith was voted for by the people who

ought to vote for him, or in the right place. Now, they talk of bringing

up documents here. I wrote to the Hon. George F. Edmunds, the most

distinguished member of the United States Senate, and simply put this

question, If a certificate of election in the Senate shows anything that

would prove the person unworthy of a seat, would he be seated pending an

investigation or not? He did not know what it referred to, and I read

it _verbatim_. I never mentioned the name of Methodist, and I read

_verbatim_ from his letter:

“No officer of the Senate has any right to decide any such question,

and, therefore, every person admitted to a seat is admitted by, in fact,

a vote of the Senate. The ordinary course in the Senate is, when

the credentials appear to be perfectly regular, and there is no

notorious and undisputed fact or circumstance against the qualifications

and election of a senator, to admit him at once and settle the question

of his right afterward. But there have been cases in which the Senate

declined to admit a claimant holding a regular certificate upon the

ground that enough was known to the Senate to justify its declining to

receive him until an inquiry should be had. Very truly yours,

“GEORGE F. EDMUNDS.”

Now, Mr. President, all this twaddle about the women being in is based

upon the pretence that one woman is there now. The certificate shows

that they were women, though as yet no action has been taken in regard

to them at all. If they were in, they were in with a constitutional

challenge. I champion the holy cause of women. I stand here to champion

their cause against their being introduced into this body without their

own sex having had the opportunity of expressing their opinion upon

the subject. I stand here to protect them against being connected with

movements without law or contrary to law, and those who wish to bring

them in and those who say it is the constitution of the man and

prejudice (my friend, Dr. Potts, said prejudice), they are persons,

indeed, to stand up here as, _par excellence_ the champions of women!

Is it the constitution of the men? Have you read the letter of

Mrs. Caroline Wright in the _Christian Advocate_, one of our most

distinguished American Methodist women? She does not wish to see them

here. It is the constitution of the woman in that case, and I am opposed

to their being admitted until the general sentiment of the women and the

men of our Church have an opportunity of being heard upon it.

Now, Mr. President, note these facts.... This is not a fact, but

my opinion. I solemnly believe that there was never an hour in the

Methodist Episcopal Church when it was in so great danger as it is

to-day, not on account of the admission of these women, two of whom I

believe to be as competent to sit in judgment on this question as any

man on this floor. That is not the question, as I propose to show. I

assert freely, here and now, if the women are in under the Restrictive

Rules, no power ought to put them out. If they are not in under the

Restrictive Rules, nothing has been done since, in my judgment, bearing

upon it. I am astounded that these brethren fancy that this question

has no bearing at all on the meaning of that rule. That is a wonderful

thing. But we affirm that when the Church voted to introduce lay

delegation, it not only did not intend to introduce women, but it did

intend to fill up the whole body with men. That is what we affirm. If

we can prove it, it is a tower of help to us. If we cannot prove it, we

cannot make out our case. But our contention is, that the Church did

not undertake to put women in, and it did undertake to fill up the

capacities and relations of the body with men. Now, look at it. No man

goes to the dictionary to find the meaning of the word “layman.” There

is not a man that can find out the meaning of our Restrictive Rules from

the dictionary. No living man can make out the meaning of a word in the

Restrictive Rules from Webster's dictionary. You must get it from the

history of the Church. Who is the “General Superintendent” by Webster or

Worcester? The Methodist Episcopacy is the thing that is protected by

the Restrictive Rules. The dictionary does not tell how the Chartered

Fund shall be taken care of. Now they talk about laymen. They do not

seem, I think, to understand the history of the thing. Some of them do

not appear to understand the history of the English language. Why was

the word “layman” ever introduced? Because there was a separate class of

clergy men in the world, but there was not a class of clergywomen in the

world. If there had been, there would have been a term for laywomen and

for clergywomen. And the word was invented to distinguish the laymen

from the _clergy_men. Had there been clergywomen, there would have been

laywomen. The “laity” means all the people, men, women, and children. A

woman is one of the laity, and so is every child in the country or in

the Church one of the laity. But when you speak of man acting as a unit

he is a layman, but you never say a laywoman. You say: a woman. Abraham

Lincoln said, “All these things are done and suffered, that government

of the people, for the people, and by the people should not perish

from the earth.” Now, people, the dictionary says, are men, women, and

children. Did Abraham Lincoln mean that any women or children can take

any part in the government of the nation? No, no, no! He meant this.

When he stood up and delivered his inaugural speech, he said this, “The

intent of the lawmaker is the law.”

I give them something from one of the greatest lawyers that ever lived

to think of awhile--John Selden: “The only honest meaning of any word is

the intent of the man that wrote it.” At the time that the plan of lay

delegation was adopted, there was not a single Conference of the Church

on this wide globe, not one that distinguished between the ministry and

the laity that allowed women to take any part in its law-making body.

Some one will talk about the Quakers. But they deny the existence of the

Church, the sacraments of the Church, and make no distinction between

the ministry and the laity. Let them get up and show that there was ever

one Church in the world worthy of the name that allowed women to make

its laws. There is not one to-day. Let them name a Church, let them name

one that has allowed women in its law-making body; and yet such is the

blinding power of gush that men will say that our fathers all understood

it and proposed to put women in. The fact is, that they only proposed to

allow them to put us in. As soon as the General Conference adjourned the

women made an appeal in a public statement. They were asked to vote for

lay delegation, and were told that then they could set the Church right.

The opponents appealed to them to vote against it on the ground that it

would not make any difference to them. James Porter, Daniel Curry, Dr.

Hodgson (Professor Little thinks he was the greatest of them all) wrote

a series of articles in the _Advocate_, and it never occurred to them

that the women could come into the General Conference. Lay delegation

was only admitted by 33 votes. Had there been a change of 33 votes they

would not have come in. Every member of the New York East Conference

knows that Dr. Curry's influence was so powerful that he could almost

get a majority against it. And they know if any one had set up an

opposition to it on this ground, the whole Conference would have voted

against the movement, and that if it had not been for Bishop Ames and

Bishop Janes, who went to the Wyoming Conference where the majority was

opposed to lay delegation, and by their influence there converted my

friend Olin and others, he knows that if this matter of the women had

been in or understood, the whole Conference would have been against it.

It would not have been possible. Dr. Potts says that it is prejudice.

Nothing of the kind. Do you know there are 12,000 Methodist ministers

that are ciphers all the time except when they vote for delegates? Are

you going to presume that when the Church has a multitude of members,

that it is going to sit here and change, by an interpretation, a

Restrictive Rule, or put in what was never in, and never understood to

be in? The Restrictive Rule fills up the ministerial delegates. Every

time you put a woman in, you put a man out. This subject has never come

up here before. The question is this, Do those Restrictive Rules mean

anything? If they do, you cannot put in anything that the fathers did

not put in. And if you put in women as lawmakers; if you can read those

Rules and put them in there, you can change any one of the Restrictive

Rules by a majority of one. And I want to say to you, that if you do

it, you will prove to the Methodist Episcopal Church that the sole

protection we have against the caprice of a majority of the General

Conference is not worth the paper it is written on. All you have to do

is to get a majority of the Conference against the Episcopacy, and then

put any interpretation, and then you get a few women admitted, and this

you call the progress of the age. Mr. Chairman, I believe in progress,

and when the Church progresses far enough, it can change this law in

a constitutional way. But it has not yet gone far enough. These men

believe that the Church has never done it, or that it is best. Dr. Flood

said that they must be brought in in the light of progress. I affirm

that Dr. Flood's arguments all point in that direction--they must be

interpreted in the light of progress. When you do that you have got a

despotism. I want to go back to my constituents and say this: I exercise

all the power that our Charter gives me. But at the moment that anything

is proposed, and we put in what the fathers did not have before their

eyes, at that moment I stop and say, Thus far, but no farther. A

despotism is a despotism, whether it is a despotism without restraint,

the Czar with his wife, the Czar without his wife. You will turn this

house into a despotism, and you will find it difficult to defend

Methodism by its peculiar Constitution before the American people.

If you want women in, there is another way to bring them in. Send the

question around as you did for lay delegation. There was only a doubt in

the General Conference of 1868, and yet they had a sense of candor. John

M'Clintock fought in favor of taking them in. But he said, “I think it

best to send the question around.” True progress is not gained in any

other way. Some prefer a shorter cut. Let me say to you, “He that cometh

in by the door,” the same hath a right to come in; but he that cometh in

another way, is not as respectable as in the other case.

ADDRESS OF REV. DR. A.B. LEONARD.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately for me, I have received no anonymous

letters. And so I have nothing either sensational or startling with

which to introduce my speech. I shall not speak this morning under

any fear of being removed as an obstruction, or of having my future

prospects blasted. It is my privilege, therefore, to speak to you this

morning upon this subject calmly and dispassionately, having no motive

to either suppress or exaggerate the truth. The party who wrote Dr.

Buckley, threatening to remove him as an obstruction, must be highly

gratified to know that that obstruction has already been removed.

Brother Hughey removed the obstruction, extinguished the candle, and

destroyed the candlestick.

We are to approach this question this morning, to discuss it purely upon

its merits. The ground of constitutional law was traversed thoroughly

yesterday morning in the opening speech by Dr. Potts, a speech that,

though he did not hear it himself, was heard by this body, and will

be heard through the length and breadth of the Church everywhere. It

remains for us who follow him simply to turn on a few side-lights here

and there, or to give an opportunity of viewing this question from a

new point of view. And, first, there is a line of argument that may be

helpful to some that has already been presented in part touching the

administration of our law and the interpretation of terms that is

worthy, I think, of still further consideration.

Dr. Buckley said in the New York _Christian Advocate_ of March 15th,

1888:

“The question of eligibility turns, first, upon whether the persons

claiming seats are laymen; secondly, whether they have been members of

the Church for five years consecutively, and are at least twenty-five

years of age; and, thirdly, upon whether they have been duly elected. If

women are found to be eligible under the law, they would stand upon the

same plane with men, in this particular, that they must be twenty-five

years, etc.”

Now, then, is a woman legally qualified to sit in the General Conference

as a lay delegate? Is she a layman in the sense of that word in the

Discipline? If she be not in, she cannot be introduced contrary to law

by a mere majority vote of the General Conference. The Doctor sometimes

writes more clearly than he speaks, and it was so in the occasion of

writing this article. Over against this we have one of (as Dr. Hamilton

would say) the “subtle insinuations” of the Episcopal Address, which

declares that no definition of “layman” settles the question of

eligibility as to any class of persons. For many are classed as

laymen for the purposes of lay representation, and have to do with it

officially as laymen, yet themselves are ineligible as delegates. Well,

in this case, we have the Episcopal Board over against the editor. Both

are right and both are wrong. The editor is right when he said of a

woman, if she be a lay member her right is clear as that of any duly

elected man. But he is wrong when he denies to her a right to a seat in

this body as a layman. The Episcopal Address is wrong when it says

that “no definition of the word 'layman' settles the question of

eligibility.” But it is right when it says, “Many are classed as laymen

for purposes of lay representation, and have to do with it officially as

lay members who are not themselves eligible as delegates.”

In the practical work of the Church, and in the administration of its

laws, women have been regarded as laymen from the beginning until now.

They pay quarterage. If they did not pay quarterage some of our salaries

would be very short. They contribute to our benevolent collections, and

if it were not for their contributions, we would not to-day be shouting

over the “Million dollars for Missions.” They pray and testify in our

class-meetings and prayer-meetings, and but for their presence among

us, many of those meetings would be as silent as the grave. They are

amenable to law, and must be tried by the very same process by which men

are tried. They are subject to the same penalty. They may be suspended;

they may be expelled. In all these respects they have been regarded as

laymen from the beginning. Indeed, we have never recognized more than

two orders in our Church. We have laymen and ministers. Up to 1872 but

one of these orders was represented in this General Conference. This

General Conference was strictly a clerical organization. But in 1872 we

marked a new epoch in Methodist history, and a new element came into

this body, and has been in all our sessions since that date. The first

step, as has been mentioned here before, was taken in 1868, when the

question of lay delegation was sent down to the members of the Church

over twenty-one years of age, and to the Annual Conferences. Dr. Queal,

if I understood him, made what is, in my judgment, a fatal concession on

this question. He distinctly stated, if I understood him correctly,

and I have not had time to refer to the report of his speech (if I

misinterpret him he will correct me), that when the motion to strike

out the word “male” was made, it was done for the purpose of putting a

“rider” on the motion and cause its defeat, and when that fact was made

known to those in favor of lay delegation, they said they would accept

it then with that interpretation, and the interpretation was that the

amendment would let women into the General Conference.

Now, that being true, all this talk about the idea of the “women coming

in” being never entertained until very recently falls to the ground. It

was present on that occasion. It was understood by those that opposed

lay delegation, and that favored it, that if they passed this amendment

and the laymen were allowed to come in, it would open the door to allow

women to come in also.

L. C. Queal said:

I think I am entitled now to correct this putting of the case.

Bishop Foss:

Are you misrepresented?

L. C. Queal:

I am misrepresented in this, that while I stated that Dr. Sherman

put that on as a “rider,” with a view to defeating the bill, that

immediately after thinking so I thought it might be the occasion of

securing the approval of the principle in the laity of the Church. That

is all I stated. All the rest of Dr. Leonard's statement is his own

inference--a misconstruction of the fact. A.B. Leonard:

I understood Dr. Queal as I stated. I have not had time to refer to

the speech he made. I leave his statement with you, and you have the

privilege of consulting his speech as it is printed this morning, in

reference to this matter. It came to my thought very distinctly that the

idea of the possibility of women coming in was then lodged in the minds

that were both in favor of and opposed to lay delegation.

Now, then, this vote that was taken, in accordance with the order of

1868, laid the foundation stone for the introduction of women into this

body. That sent the question of lay delegation down to be voted on by

the laity of the Church. If the women were not to be recognized as laity

here, why allow them to vote on the question of the laity at all? And,

having allowed them to vote on the question of the laity, settling the

very foundation principle itself, with what consistency can we disallow

them a place in this General Conference, when by their votes they opened

the way for the laymen coming into this General Conference? Do you not

remember that we had a vote previously, and the men only voted, and that

the lay delegation scheme was defeated, and the _Methodist_, that was

published in this city, being the organ of the lay delegationists, said

that “votes ought to be weighed, not counted”? And then the question was

sent back to be voted upon by both the men and the women? And let the

laymen of this General Conference remember that they are in this body

to-day by reason of the votes of the women of the Methodist Episcopal

Church. In 1880 we went still further. We went into the work of

construing pronouns. There had been women in the Quarterly Conferences

previously to that date; but there was a mist in the air with regard

to their legality there. The General Conference by its action did not

propose to admit women to the Quarterly Conferences. It simply proposed

to clear away the mist and recognize their legal right to sit in the

Quarterly Conference. Being in the Quarterly Conference, and in the

District Conference, they have the right to vote on every question that

comes before such bodies. They vote to license ministers, to recommend

ministers to Annual Conferences, to recommend local preachers for

deacons' and elders' orders. They vote on sending delegates to our Lay

Electoral Conferences, and they vote in elections for delegates to Lay

Electoral Conferences, and they vote in elections for delegates from Lay

Electoral Conferences to this General Conference. And there are men

on this floor to-day that would not be in this at all if they had

not received the support of women in Lay Electoral Conferences. Now,

brethren, let it be remembered that the votes of the women to send

delegates to the Lay Electoral Conferences were never challenged until

they came here asking for seats. They were good enough to elect laymen

to this body, but not good enough to take seats with laymen in this

body. With what consistency can laymen accept seats by the votes of the

women and then deprive women of their seats? I am surprised at some of

the “subtle insinuations” of the Episcopacy concerning constitutional

law. Allow me to say at this point that, having introduced into the

Quarterly Conference these women, and having given them a right to

vote there, and in the District Conferences, and in the Lay Electoral

Conferences, in all honesty we must do one of two things, if we would

be consistent, we must go back and take up that old foundation of lay

delegation that we laid in 1868, or we must go forward and allow these

women to have their seats. In a word, we must either lay again the

“foundation of repentance from dead work, or go forward to perfection.”

And I am not in favor of going back.

If it is true that the body of the Constitution is outside of the

Restrictive Rules, and cannot be changed except in the way prescribed

for altering the Restrictive Rules, then I say that this General

Conference has again and again been both lawless and revolutionary.

Every paragraph of the chapter, known as the Constitution, beginning

with §63, and closing with §69, was put into that Constitution without

any voice from an Annual Conference of this foot-stool. Not one single

one of them was ever submitted to an Annual Conference; §20, ¶183, stood

for many years in the Constitution of the Church, but was transferred

bodily from that Constitution by the General Conference to the position

it now occupies. You come and tell us to-day that we cannot change the

Constitution outside of the Restrictive Rules without going down to the

Annual Conferences; it is too late in the day to say that. We have made

too much history on that point. The present plan of lay delegation was

not submitted to the Annual Conferences. Bishop Simpson definitely

stated when he reported to the General Conference the result of the vote

ordered in 1868 that the question simply of the introduction of the

laity into the General Conference was presented to be voted upon by the

laity and by the Annual Conferences, but the “plan” was not submitted

to either to be voted upon, and the “plan” for lay delegation by which

these lay brethren occupy their seats here this morning was made in

every jot and tittle by the General Conference without any reference to

the Annual Conferences at all.

I want to know, then, by what propriety we come here in this General

Conference to say that there can be no change of Part I. of the

Constitution outside of the Restrictive Rules. The General Conference

cannot alter our articles of faith, it cannot abolish our Episcopacy; it

cannot deprive our members of a right to trial and appeal. These come

under the Restrictive Rules, and cannot be touched by this body without

the consent of the Annual Conferences; but all else has been from

beginning, and is now in the hands of the General Conference. Let it be

remembered that this General Conference is a unique body. It is at once

a legislative and a judicial body; in the former capacity it makes law;

in the latter capacity it has the power to construe law.

It is at once a Congress, if you please, to enact law, and a supreme

court to interpret law. Now, then, in admitting women to our General

Conference, we are simply construing the Constitution, and not changing

the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States gives decisions

on the construing of the Constitution, and who ever heard of a decision

of the Supreme Court being sent down to be ratified by the State

Legislatures? The Supreme Court of the United States construes the

Constitution, without any reference to the State Legislatures, and so

we construe law without any reference to the Annual Conferences. If we

touch the law inside of the Restrictive Rules, we must go down to the

Annual Conferences. Outside we are free to legislate as we may.

What is the Constitution for? The Constitution is designed simply to

limit the powers of the Legislature. In my own State of Ohio, for

illustration, we have an article in our Constitution that forbids our

Legislature to license the liquor traffic, but our legislators give a

license under the guise of taxing, but they cannot give us a license

law in form. The Constitution prevents it. There are States that have

Constitutions that have no word to say about the liquor traffic at all,

while they may either tax, license, or prohibit.

This is a fact that is well settled, that the Constitution is a

limitation of legislative power, and where there is no such limitation

there is no restriction.

ADDRESS OF REV. DR. ALFRED WHEELER.

Mr. President, it will be well for us, so far as we have progressed in

this discussion, to see how near and how far we agree. It is admitted by

the friends of the report, or by the committee, that this is a question

of law, and to be decided exclusively upon principles of law. So far as

those who are opposed to the report have spoken, they conceive, as I

understand it, that the position taken by the committee is taken by

those who are advocating its adoption. Then we are agreed that it is not

a matter of sentiment, it is not a matter of chivalry. There is no place

for knighthood, or any of its laws, or any other of the principles that

dominated the contests of the knights of old. If it were a matter of

knighthood there is not a man on this floor that would deem it necessary

to bring a lance into this body. All would be peace and quiet.

There are none that would hail with more joy and gladness the women of

the Church to a seat in this body than those of us who now, under the

circumstances, oppose their coming in.

It is not either a matter of progressive legislation regarding the

franchise of colored men, or of anybody else in the country. It is a

question of law, Methodist law, and Methodist law alone.

Now, so far as the intention is concerned of those who made the law, I

do not see how those who have kept themselves conversant with the

history of lay delegation can for a moment claim that it was even the

most remote intention of those who introduced lay delegation into the

General Conference to bring in the women, and for us to transfer the

field now toward women, in view of their magnificent work in the last

ten or fifteen years, back to twenty years, is to commit an anachronism

that would be fatal to all just interpretation of law.

I myself was in the very first meeting that was ever called to initiate

the movement that at last brought in lay delegation. I voted for it; I

wrote for it; I spoke for it in the General Conference and in the Annual

Conferences. I was a member of the first lay committee, or Committee on

Lay Delegation, that was appointed here by the General Conference in

1868. And during all these various processes of discussion, so far as I

know, the thought was never suggested that under it women would come in

to represent the laity, nor was it ever suggested that it was desirable

that they should; so that the intention of the law-maker could never

have embraced this design--the design of bringing women into the General

Conference. I leave that.

Now, I claim that the General Conference has no legal authority to admit

them here. We are not an omnipotent body. I know that the Supreme Court

of the United States, in that contest between the Northern Church, or

the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the Church South, decided that the

General Conference was the Methodist Episcopal Church. I used that

argument myself upon the Conference floor in 1868, that the General

Conference could, without any other process, by mere legislation,

introduce the laity into this body. I claimed there and then that,

according to that decision, the Methodist Episcopal Church was in the

General Conference. The General Conference refused to accept that

endorsement of that Court, or that proposition concerning the

prerogatives of this body. And through all the processes that have

been ordered concerning the introduction of lay delegation that

interpretation of the constitution of the Church has been repudiated.

The Church herself rejected the interpretation that the Supreme Court

placed upon her constitution, and as a loyal son of the Church I

accepted her interpretation of her own constitution, so that now I claim

that the General Conference has no authority whatever to change the

_personnel_ of the General Conference without the vote of the Annual

Conferences. Before it can be done constitutionally, you must obtain the

consent of the brethren of the Annual Conferences, and I am in favor of

that, and of receiving an affirmative vote on their part. But until this

is done I do not see how they can come in only as we trample the organic

law of our Church under our feet. And to do this, there is nothing but

peril ahead of us.

A simple body may disregard law with comparative impunity, but an

organic body that is complicated, complex in its nature, will find its

own security in adhering earnestly, strictly, and everlastingly, to the

law that that body passes for the government of its own conduct.

Let us see, now, with regard to this Restrictive Rule. As I have said,

it has been admitted all along that the action of the Annual Conferences

must be secured. Here comes in the decision of the General Conference of

1872. I do not need to recite it. But let us bear in mind two facts. One

is, that this General Conference is a legislative body, and that it

is also a judicial body. As a judicial body, it interprets law; as

a legislative body, it makes law. The General Conference of 1872

interpreted law, and the General Conference may reverse itself with

just as much propriety as a court can reverse itself. And if it be

the judgment of this General Conference that that interpretation was

incorrect, it is perfectly competent for this Conference to say so, and

have its action correspond with its own decision.

There is another point. The case that was before the General Conference

of 1876 was a specific case. It was the case of the relation that

local preachers sustain to the Church, a particular case. This is the

principle of all decisions in law, that when a particular case is

decided in general terms, the scope and comprehension of the decision

must be limited to the particular case itself. And if a court in its

decision embraces more than was involved in the particular case, it has

no force whatever. And as this was a particular case submitted to

the General Conference, and the decision was in general terms, it

comprehends simply the case that was before it, and cannot be advanced

to comprehend more. And the reason of this is very obvious; for if it

was not the case, then cases might be brought before the court for its

decision that had never occurred.

There is another point I wish to notice. The General Conference of 1880

did not see the effect that legislation would have by admitting women

to certain offices. Certain affirmative legislation is also negative

legislation. When saloons are permitted to sell in quantities of one

gallon, it forbids to sell in quantities of less than one gallon; when

it says you can sell in quantities of one barrel, it forbids them to

sell in quantities of two. When the General Conference of 1880

decided that women should be eligible in the Quarterly Conferences as

superintendents of Sunday-schools, class-leaders, and as stewards, by

that very affirmative conclusion, the subject was passed upon about

their taking any other position. That, I think, must be regarded as

sound, and a just interpretation of the law.

But suppose it is not; the General Conference of 1880 certainly did not

understand the matter as the General Conference of 1872 did. For if it

had, there would have been no necessity for legislation at all, there

would have been no need for putting in the law as it now stands,

that the pronoun “he,” wherever employed, shall not be considered

as prohibiting women from holding the offices of Sunday-school

Superintendent, Class Leader, and Steward.

Now, for this reason, and for the further reason that it is a matter of

immense importance that we guard against despotism, I oppose changing

the _personnel_ of the General Conference without my Annual Conference

has a right to vote upon it, and it is voted upon. Despotism is a

suitable term. A General Conference may become a despot, and just as

soon as it goes outside of its legitimate province, then it usurps, and

so far as it usurps, it becomes despotic, and is a despot; and you and

I, so far as our Annual Conferences are concerned, do well to regard

with a deep jealousy an infringement upon our organic rights. The

only safety of the Church is the equipoise that is constituted by the

relation the Annual Conferences sustain to the General Conference,

and far safer is it for us to bring these women of the Church, elect,

honorable women, into the General Conference of the Church by the same

way that their husbands and brothers are here.

There is another thought that I wish to suggest. What are the

possibilities with regard to lay delegation, supposing the design of

those who wish to bring women in without further action is successful?

You make lay delegation a farce in this body. The presiding elders and

pastors of the Church may act in co-operation, and they can elect

their own wives as delegates to this General Conference, and thus

lay delegation comes to be a farce. Some of you may laugh at this

suggestion, but it is an _in posse_, and it may easily be made an _in

esse_. It is important to us that the laity should hold the place they

have by the regulations we have, and they should be changed only to make

them more perfect.

No body is safe without adherence to law. We may set lightly by law; we

may regard it as a thing to be laid aside at the command of excitement

or passion, but the nation that does that is a doomed nation, and the

Church that does that has its history already written. The only safe

course for us to pursue is to pursue the wise, careful, judicious,

and conservative--I mean every word--and conservative course we have

heretofore pursued through all our history. When we boast of what

Methodism has done, or what she is going to do, let us remember it is

because of her firm adherence to law.

It is with her as it is with the German nation and the Anglo-Saxon

race--everywhere our glory is in our adherence to wise laws, and if we

pass unwise laws, in repealing them in the same wise.

ADDRESS OF GENERAL CLINTON B. FISK.

Mr. President and Brethren, to an onlooker of this remarkable scene,

this great debate now in the third day of its progress must be

suggestive of some of the marvellous plays, woven into song, which have

made the hearts of the thronging multitudes who have crowded this place

of meeting in the past throb alternately with emotions of hope and fear

as to the outcome of the parties involved in plot and counterplot. The

visitors to this General Conference, seated in their boxes and in the

family circle, Will say surely these honored men of God who have been

called as Superintendents of the affairs of our great conquering Church,

these chosen ministers of reconciliation and peace, these _male_

laymen called by their brethren to their high places in this General

Conference, whose names at home are the synonym of chivalrous

goodness--surely all these of rank and talent and authority, whose able

and eloquent words have been ringing through the arches and dome of this

temple of music on the wrong side of the question, are but simply acting

the parts assigned them. In the final scene they will join hands around

the eligible women elect, who, in obedience to the call of the laity in

their several Conferences, are in their seats with us, and say, “Whom

God hath joined, let not _male_ put asunder.” My brothers, let us

briefly restate the case. Five noble women of the laymen of the

Methodist Episcopal Church have been chosen as delegates to this General

Conference under the Constitution and by the forms prescribed by the

laws of the Church. As they enter, or attempt to enter, the portals of

this great assemblage they hear a voice from the platform, in words not

to be misunderstood, “Thou shalt not,” and voices from all parts of the

house take up the prohibitory words, and supplement the voices of the

Bishops, “Thou shalt not.” And one would think, from the vehement

oratory of the resisting delegates of this General Conference, that the

foundations of the Church were in imminent peril by the presence of

these “elect ladies” among us.

Let us turn back a moment, and review the history of the rise, progress,

and triumph of the cause of lay representation. I claim to know a little

something about it, as I was on the skirmish line in the conflict, and

in all its battles fought until the day of victory.

In 1861, to the male members of the Church, was submitted the question

of lay representation. It failed of securing a majority vote. Had it

carried, there would have been plausibility in the argument this

day made against the eligibility of women to seats in this General

Conference. The evolution of the succeeding eight years lifted woman to

a higher appreciation of her position in the Methodist Church, and her

rights and privileges became the theme of discussion throughout the

bounds of the Church. Among the champions for woman was that magnificent

man, that grand old man, Dr. Daniel D. Whedon, who, in discussing this

question, said:

“If it is _rights_ they talk of, every competent member of the Church of

Christ, of either sex and of every shade of complexion, has equal

original rights. Those rights, they may be assured, when that question

comes fairly up, will be firmly asserted and maintained.”

And in answer to the expected fling, “But you are a woman's rights man,”

he replied:

“We are a human rights man. And our mother was a human being. And our

wives, sisters, and daughters are all human beings. And that these human

beings are liable as any other human beings to be oppressed by the

stronger sex, and as truly need in self-defence a check upon oppression,

the history of all past governments and legislation does most terribly

demonstrate. What is best in the State is not indeed with us the

question; but never, with our consent, shall the Church of the living

God disfranchise her who gave to the world its divine Redeemer. When

that disfranchisement comes to the debate, may the God of eternal

righteousness give us strength equal to our will to cleave it to the

ground!”

The General Conference of 1868, after full discussion, submitted the

question of Lay Representation to a vote of all the members of the

Church, male and female, thus recognizing the women as laymen, as

belonging to the great body of the laity, and as vitally interested in

the government of the Church, and having rights under that government.

During the debate on the report of the Committee on the plan for

submitting the question as in 1861, to the male members, Dr. Sherman

moved to strike out the word “male.” While that motion was under

consideration, Dr. Slicer, of Baltimore, said, “If it were the last

moment I should spend, and the last articulate sound I should utter,

I should speak for the wives, mothers, and daughters of the Methodist

Episcopal Church.... I am for women's rights, sir, _wherever church

privileges are concerned_.”

Dr. Sherman's motion was carried by a vote of 142 to 70, and the

question of lay representation was submitted to all the members of the

Church over twenty-one years of age. The General Conference did not ask

women to vote on a proposition that only male members of the Church

should be represented in the General Conference, and it did not then

enter the thought of any clear-headed man that women were to be deprived

of their rights to a seat in the General Conference. There were a few

noisy, disorderly brethren who cried out from their seats, “No, no,” but

they were silenced by the presiding Bishop and the indignation of the

right thinking, orderly delegates.

What does the Rev. Dr. David Sherman, the mover of the motion to strike

out the word “male,” now say of the prevailing sentiment on that day of

great debate? I have his freshly written words in response to an inquiry

made a few weeks ago. On March 21st he made this statement:

“Some of us believed that women were laymen, that the term 'men' in the

Discipline, as elsewhere, often designated not sex, but genus; and that

those who constituted a main part of many of our churches should have a

voice in determining under what government they would live. We believed

in the rightful equality of the sexes before the law, and hence that

women should have the same right as men to vote and hold office. The

Conference of 1868 was a reform body, and it seemed possible to take

these views on a stage; hence the amendment was offered, and carried

with a rush and heartiness even beyond my expectations....The latter

interpretation of the Conference making all not members of Conferences

laymen, fully carried out these views, as they were understood at the

moment by the majority party. Some, to be sure, cried out against it,

but their voices were not heard amid the roar of victory. Who can go

back of the interpretation of the supreme court of the Church?”

It is amazing that brethren will stand here to-day and utterly ignore

the decision of our Supreme Court in defining who are laymen. Could

the utterances of any Court be more definite and clear than those of the

General Conference when it said, “The General Conference holds that

in all matters connected with the election of lay delegates the word

'laymen' must be understood to include all the members of the Church who

are not members of the Annual Conferences”? This decision must include

women among the laity of the Church. I know it is said that this means

the classification of local preachers. We respond that that only appears

from the debate. The General Conference was settling a great principle

in which the personal rights and privileges of two thirds of the

membership of our Church were involved. Surely, our Supreme Court would

have made a strange decision had they, in defining laymen, excepted

women. Let us see how it would look in cold type had they said, “The

General Conference holds that in all matters connected with the election

of lay delegates the word laymen must be understood to include all the

members of the Annual Conferences, _and who are not women_.” We would

have become the laughing-stock of Christendom had we made such an

utterance. The Church universal in all ages has always divided its

membership into two great classes, and two only, the clergy and

the laymen, using the terms laity and laymen synonymously and

interchangeably. See Bingham's “Antiquities,” Blackstone's

“Commentaries,” Schaffs “History,” and kindred authorities. It is sheer

trifling for sensible males to talk about a distinction between lay_men_

and lay_women_.

Women were made class-leaders, stewards, and Sunday-school

superintendents, and employed in these several capacities long before

the specific interpretations of the pronouns were made. They were so

appointed and employed in Saint Paul's Church in this city during the

pastorate of that sainted man, John M'Clintock, in 1860, and could the

voice of that great leader and lover of the Church reach us to day from

the skies it would be in protest against the views presented in this

debate by the supporters of the committee's report and its amendment.

It is a well-established and incontrovertible principle of law that any

elector is eligible to the office for which said elector votes, unless

there be a _specific enactment discriminating against the elector_. Our

law says that a lay delegate shall be twenty-five years of age, and five

years a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church. It does not say that a

delegate must not be a woman, or must be a man.

Women are eligible to membership in this General Conference. Women have

been chosen delegates as provided by law. They are here in their seats

ready for any duty on committees, or otherwise, as they may be invited.

We cannot turn them out and slam the door on their exit. It would be

revolutionary so to do by a simple vote of this body. It would be a

violation of the guarantees of personal liberty, a holding of the

just rights of the laity of the Church. We cannot exclude them from

membership in the General Conference, except by directing the Annual

Conferences to vote on the question of their exclusion. Are we ready to

send that question in that form down to the Annual Conferences for their

action? I trust that a large majority of this General Conference will

say with emphasis we are not ready for any such action. The women of our

Methodism have a place in the heart of the Church from which they cannot

be dislodged. They are our chief working members. They are at the very

front of every great movement of the Church at home or abroad. In the

spirit of rejoicing consecration our matrons and maids uphold the

banner of our Lord in every conflict with the enemy of virtue and

righteousness. Looking down upon us from these galleries, tier upon

tier, are the magnificent leaders of the Woman's Foreign and the Woman's

Home Missionary Societies. Our women are at the front of the battle now

waging against the liquor traffic in our fair land, and they will not

cease their warfare until this nation shall be redeemed from the curse

of the saloon. God bless all these women of our great conquering Church

of the Redeemer.

Twenty years ago Bishop Hurst accompanied me on a leisurely tour of

continental Europe. In the old city of Nuremberg we wandered among

the old churches and market-places, where may be seen the marvellous

productions of that evangel of art, Albert Durer. In an old schloss in

that city may be found the diary of Albert Durer, almost four centuries

old. In it you may read as follows: “Master Gebhart, of Antwerp, has

a daughter seventeen years old, and she has illuminated the head of a

Saviour for which I gave a florin. It is a marvel that a woman could

do so much.” Three and a half centuries later Rosa Bonheur hangs her

master-piece in the chief places of the galleries of the world, and

Harriet Hosmer's studio contributes many of the best marbles that adorn

the parlors of Europe and America, and no one wonders that a woman can

do so much. From that day when Martin Luther, the protesting monk, and

Catherine Von Bora, the ex-nun, stood together at the altar and the

twain became one, woman has by her own heroism, by her faith in her sex

and in God, who made her, fought a good fight against the organized

selfishness of those who would withhold from her any right or privilege

to which she is entitled, and has lifted herself from slavery and

barbarism to a place by the side of man, where God placed her in

paradise, his equal in tact and talent, moving upon the world with her

unseen influences, and making our Christian civilization what it is

to-day. Let not our Methodism in this her chiefest council say or do

ought that shall lead the world to conclude that we are retreating from

our advanced position of justice to the laity of the Church. Let us

rather strengthen our guarantee of loving protection of every right and

privilege of every member of our Church, without distinction of race,

color, or sex. Amen and Amen.

ADDRESS OF JUDGE Z. P. TAYLOR.

Mr. President and Gentlemen, when elected a delegate I had no opinion on

the constitutional question here involved. But I had then, and I have

now, a sympathy for the women, and a profound admiration of their work.

No man on this floor stands more ready and more willing to assist them

by all lawful and constitutional means to every right and and to every

privilege enjoyed by men.

But, sir, notwithstanding this admiration and sympathy, I cannot lose

sight of the vital question before the General Conference now and here.

That question is this: Under the Constitution and Restrictive Rules of

the Methodist Episcopal Church are women eligible as lay delegates in

this General Conference? If they are, then this substitute offered by

Dr. Moore does them an injustice, because it puts a cloud upon their

right and title to seats upon this floor. If they are not, then this

body would be in part an unconstitutional body if they are admitted.

It follows that whoever supports this substitute either wrongs the elect

ladies or violates the Constitution. If they are constitutionally a part

of this body, seat them; if they are not, vote down this substitute, and

adopt the report of the committee, with the amendment of Dr. Neely, and

then let them in four years hence in the constitutional way. After

the most careful study of the vital question in the light of history,

ecclesiastical, common, and constitutional law, it is my solemn and

deliberate judgment that women are not eligible as lay delegates in this

body.

Facts, records, and testimonials conclusively prove that in 1868, when

the General Conference submitted the matter of lay delegation to the

entire membership of the Church, the idea of women being eligible was

not the intent. The intent was to bring into the General Conference a

large number of men of business experience, who could render service

by their knowledge and experience touching the temporal affairs of the

Church. When the principle of admitting lay delegates was voted upon

by the laity, this idea, and no other, was intended. When the Annual

Conferences voted for the principle and the plan, this and this only was

their intent.

When the General Conference, by the constitutional majority, acted in

favor of admitting the lay delegates provisionally elected, this idea,

and none other, actuated them. It was not the intent then to admit

women, but to admit men only, and the intent must govern in construing a

Constitution.

Dr. Fisk said Judge Cooley is a high authority on constitutional law. I

admit it, and am happy to say that I was a student of his over a quarter

of a century ago, and ever since then have studied and practised

constitutional law, and I am not here to stultify my judgment by

allowing sentiment and impulse to influence my decision.

Those opposing the report of the committee, with few exceptions, admit

that it was not the intent and purpose, when the Constitution and

Restrictive Rules were amended, to admit women as lay delegates. They

claim, however, that times have changed, and now propose to force a

construction upon the language not intended by the laity, the Annual

Conferences, or the General Conference at the time of the amendment. Can

this be done without an utter violation of law? I answer, No.

In the able address read by Bishop Merrill, containing the views of the

Board of Bishops, he says:

“For the first time in our history several 'elect ladies' appear,

regularly certified from Electoral Conferences, as lay delegates to this

body. In taking the action which necessitates the consideration of the

question of their eligibility, the Electoral Conferences did not consult

the Bishops as to the law in the case, nor do we understand it to be our

duty to define the law for these Conferences; neither does it appear

that any one is authorized to decide questions of law in them. The

Electoral Conferences simply assumed the lawfulness of this action,

being guided, as we are informed, by a declarative resolution of the

General Conference of 1872, defining the scope of the word 'laymen,” in

answer to a question touching the classification and rights of ordained

local and located ministers. Of course, the language of that resolution

is carried beyond its original design when applied to a subject not

before the body when it was adopted, and not necessarily involved in the

language itself. This also should be understood, that no definition of

the word 'laymen' settles the question of eligibility as to any class

of persons, for many are classed as laymen for the purposes of lay

representation, and have to do with it officially as laymen, who are

themselves not eligible as delegates. Even laymen who are confessedly

ineligible, who are not old enough to be delegates, or have not been

members long enough, may be stewards, class-leaders, trustees, local

preachers and exhorters, and, as such, be members of the Quarterly

Conference, and vote for delegates to the Electoral Conference without

themselves being eligible.

“The constitutional qualifications for eligibility cannot be modified by

a resolution of the General Conference, however sweeping, nor can the

original meaning of the language be enlarged. If women were included in

the original constitutional provision for lay delegates, they are here

by constitutional right. If they were not so included, it is beyond the

power of this body to give them membership lawfully, except by the

formal amendment of the Constitution, which cannot be effected without

the consent of the Annual Conferences. In extending to women the highest

spiritual privileges, in recognizing their gifts, and in providing for

them spheres of Christian activity, as well as in advancing them to

positions of official responsibility, ours has been a leader of the

Churches, and gratefully do we acknowledge the good results shown in

their enlarged usefulness, and in the wonderful developments of their

power to work for God, which we take as evidences of the divine approval

of the high ground taken. In all reformatory and benevolent enterprises,

especially in the Temperance, Missionary, and Sunday-school departments

of Church-work, their success is marvellous, and challenges our highest

admiration. Happily no question of competency or worthiness is involved

in the question of their eligibility as delegates. Hitherto the

assumption underlying the legislation of the Church has been that they

were ineligible to official positions, except by special provision of

law. In harmony with this assumption, they have been made eligible,

by special enactment, of the offices of steward, class-leader, and

Sunday-school superintendent, and naturally the question arises as

to whether the necessity for special legislation, in order to their

eligibility to those specified offices, does not indicate similar

necessity for special provision in order to their eligibility as

delegates, and if so it is further to be considered that the offices of

steward, class-leader, and Sunday-school superintendent may be created

and filled by simple enactments of the General Conference itself; but to

enter the General Conference, and form part of the law-making body

of the Church, requires special provision in the Constitution, and,

therefore, such provision as the General Conference alone cannot make.”

Now, sir, this language moves forward with a grasp of logic akin to that

used by Chief Justice Marshall, or that eminent jurist, Cooley, from

whom I beg leave to quote. Cooley, in his great work on “Constitutional

Limitations,” says:

“A Constitution is not made to mean one thing at one time, and another

at some subsequent time, when the circumstances may have changed as

perhaps to make a different rule in the case seem desirable. A principal

share of the benefit expected from written Constitutions would be

lost, if the rules they establish were so flexible as to bend to

circumstances, or be modified by public opinion.

“The meaning of the Constitution is fixed when it is adopted, and is not

different at any subsequent time.”

This same great author says:

“Intent governs. The object of construction applied to a written

constitution is to give effect to the intent of the people in adopting

it. In the case of written laws it is the intent of the lawgiver that is

to be enforced.

“But it must not be forgotten in construing our constitutions that in

many particulars they are but the legitimate successors of the great

charters of English liberty whose provisions declaratory of the rights

of the subject have acquired a well understood meaning which the people

must be supposed to have had in view in adopting them. We cannot

understand these unless we understand their history.

“It is also a very reasonable rule that a State Constitution shall be

understood and construed in the light, and by the assistance of the

common law, and with the fact in view that its rules are still in force.

“It is a maxim with the Courts that statutes in derogation of the common

law shall be construed strictly.”

Here, sir, we have the language of Judge Cooley himself. It is as clear

as the noonday's sun, and he utterly repudiates the pernicious doctrine

that the Constitution can grow and develop so as to mean one thing when

it is adopted, and something else at another time. You can never inject

anything into a Constitution by construction which was not in it when

adopted. And you are bound, according to all rules of construction, to

give it the construction which was intended when adopted. No man of

common honesty and common sense dares to assert on this floor that it

was the intent when the Constitution was amended to admit women as lay

delegates. It follows inevitably that they are not constitutionally

eligible, and to admit them is to violate the Constitution of the

Church, which, as a Court, we are in honor bound not to do.

It has been asserted with gravity that the right to vote for a person

for office carries with it the right to be voted for unless prohibited

by positive enactment. This proposition is not true, and never has been.

We have seen, when the Constitution and Restrictive Rules were amended,

the intent was to admit men only as lay delegates. No General Conference

can, by resolution or decision, change the Constitution and Restrictive

Rules. Grant, if you please, that the General Conference, by its action

in 1880, had power to make women eligible in the Quarterly Conference as

stewards and class-leaders, this could not qualify her to become a lay

delegate in the law-making body of the Church. The qualifications of lay

delegates to this body must inhere in the Constitution and Restrictive

Rules, according to their intent and meaning when adopted. It is

fundamental law that where general disabilities exist, not simply by

statute, but by common law, the removal of lesser disabilities does not

carry with it the removal of the greater ones.

Legislation qualifying women to vote in Wyoming and elsewhere had to be

coupled also with positive enactments qualifying her to be voted for,

otherwise she would have been ineligible to office. This is so, and I

defy any lawyer to show the contrary.

§3, Article I, Constitution of the United States, reads:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from

each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six years. No person

shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty

years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall

not, when elected, be an inhabitant of the State for which he shall be

chosen.”

These and no other qualifications are worded or found in the

Constitution of the United States touching the qualification of

Senators. Is there a layman on this floor who will dare assert that

under the Constitution of the United States women are eligible as

Representatives or Senators? Words of common gender are exclusively

used as applied to the qualification of Senators. The words persons and

citizens include women the same as they include men. Nevertheless, in

the light of the past, I am bold to assert, that any man who would dare

stand in the Senate of the United States, and contend that women are

eligible to the office of United States Senators, would be regarded by

the civilized world as a person of gush and void of judgment.

Article 14, United States Constitution, §1:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the

jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, wherein they

reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the

_privileges_ or _immunities_ of citizens of the United States; nor shall

any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due

process of law, _nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the

equal protection of the laws_.”

(Tax case and what was decided.) (Mrs. Minor _vs_. Judges of Election.

53 Mo. 68.)

The first case indicates that the word citizen when affecting property

rights includes corporations.

The second, that the word person, when it relates to the woman claiming

the right to vote, does not confer upon her that right.

The language is: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall

abridge the privileges or immunities of any citizen of the United

States. Nevertheless, a Republican Circuit Judge held this language did

not entitle Mrs. Minor to vote. A democratic Supreme Court of Missouri

held the same, and the Supreme Court of the United States, in an able

opinion written by men known as the friends of women, conclusively

demonstrated that these constitutional guarantees did not confer upon

woman the right to vote. Why? Because, from time immemorial, this right

had not obtained in favor of woman, and these words of common gender

should not be so construed as to confer this right, since it was not

intended when made to affect their status in this regard.