Title: Samantha among the Brethren — Volume 7
Author: Holley, Marietta, 1836-1926
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Samantha among the Brethren — Volume 7" ***


SAMANTHA

AMONG THE BRETHREN.

By

"Josiah Allen's Wife"

(Marietta Holley)


Part 7


CHAPTER XXVI.


He wuz jest a-countin' out his money prior to puttin' it away in his tin
box, and I laid the subject before him strong and eloquent, jest the
wants and needs of the meetin' house, and jest how hard we female
sisters wuz a-workin', and jest how much we needed some money to buy our
ingregiencies with for the fair.

He set still, a-countin' out his money, but I know he heard me. There
wuz four fifty dollar bills, a ten, and a five, and I felt that at the
very least calculation he would hand me out the ten or the five, and
mebby both on 'em.

But he laid 'em careful in the box, and then pulled out his old
pocket-book out of his pocket, and handed me a ten cent piece.

[Illustration: "HANDED ME A TEN CENT PIECE."]

I wuz mad. And I hain't a-goin' to deny that we had some words. Or at
least I said some words  to him, and gin him a middlin' clear idee of
how I felt on the subject.

Why, the colt wuz more mine than his in the first place, and I didn't
want a cent of money for myself, but only wanted it for the good of the
Methodist meetin' house, which he ort to be full as interested in as I
wuz.

Yes, I gin him a pretty lucid idee of what my feelin's wuz on the
subject--and spozed mebby I had convinced him. I wuz a-standin' with my
back to him, a-ironin' a shirt for him, when I finished up my piece
of mind. And thought more'n as likely as not he'd break down and be
repentent, and hand me out a ten dollar bill.

But no, he spoke out as pert and cheerful as anything and sez he:

"Samantha, I don't think it is necessary for Christians to give such a
awful sight. Jest look at the widder's mit."

I turned right round and looked at him, holdin' my flat-iron in my right
hand, and sez I:

"What do you mean, Josiah Allen? What are you talkin' about?"

[Illustration: "WHAT DO YOU MEAN, JOSIAH ALLEN? WHAT ARE YOU TALKIN' ABOUT?"]

"Why the widder's mit that is mentioned in Scripter, and is talked about
so much by Christians to this day. Most probable it wuz a odd one, I
dare persume to say she had lost the mate to it. It specilly mentions
that there wuzn't but one on 'em. And jest see how much that is talked
over, and praised up clear down the ages, to this day. It couldn't have
been worth more'n five cents, if it wuz worth that."

"How do you spell mit, Josiah Allen?" sez I.

"Why m-i-t-e, mit."

"I should think," sez I, "that that spells mite."

"Oh well, when you are a-readin' the Bible, all the best commentaters
agree that you must use your own judgment. Mite! What sense is there in
that? Widder's mite! There hain't any sense in it, not a mite."

And Josiah kinder snickered here, as if he had made a dretful cute
remark, bringin' the "mite" in in that way. But I didn't snicker, no,
there wuzn't a shadow, or trace of anything to be heard in my linement,
but solemn and bitter earnest. And I set the flat-iron down on the
stove, solemn, and took up another, solemn, and went to ironin' on his
shirt collar agin with solemnety and deep earnest. "No," Josiah Allen
continued, "there hain't no sense in that--but mit! there you have
sense. All wimmen wear mits; they love 'em. She most probable had a good
pair, and lost one on 'em, and then give the other to the church. I tell
you it takes men to translate the Bible, they have such a realizin'
sense of the weaknesses of wimmen, and how necessary it is to translate
it in such a way as to show up them weaknesses, and quell her down, and
make her know her place, make her know that man is her superior in every
way, and it is her duty as well as privilege to look up to him."

And Josiah Allen crossed his left leg over his right one, as haughty
and over bearin' a-crossin' as I ever see in my life, and looked up
haughtily at the stove-pipe hole in the ceilin', and resoomed,

"But, as I wuz sayin' about her mit, the widder's, you know. That is
jest my idee of givin', equinomical, savin', jest as it should be."

"Yes," sez I, in a very dry axent, most as dry as my flat-iron, and that
wuz fairly hissin' hot. "She most probable had some man to advise her,
and to tell her what use the mit would be to support a big meetin'
house." Oh, how dry my axent wuz. It wuz the very dryest, and most irony
one I keep by me--and I keep dretful ironikle ones to use in cases of
necessity.

"Most probable," sez Josiah, "most probable she did." He thought I wuz
praisin' men up, and he acted tickled most to death.

"Yes, some man without any doubt, advised her, told her that some other
widder would lose one of hern, and give hers to the meetin' house, jest
the mate to hern. That is the way I look at it," sez he "and I mean to
mention that view of mine on this subject the very next time they take
up a subscription in the meetin' house and call on me."

But I turned and faced him then with the hot flat-iron in my hand, and
burnin' indignation in my eys, and sez I:

"If you mention that, Josiah Allen, in the meetin' house, or to any
livin' soul on earth, I'll part with you." And I would, if it wuz the
last move I ever made.

But I gin up from that minute the idea of gettin' anything out of Josiah
Allen for the fair. But I had some money of my own that I had got by
sellin' three pounds of geese feathers and a bushel of dried apples,
every feather picked by me, and every quarter of apple pared and peeled
and strung and dried by me. It all come to upwerds of seven dollars, and
I took every cent of it the next day out of my under bureau draw and
carried it to the meetin' house and gin it to the treasurer, and told
'em, at the request of the hull on 'em, jest how I got the money.

And so the hull of the female sisters did, as they handed in their
money, told jest how they come by it.

Sister Moss had seated three pairs of children's trouses for young Miss
Gowdy, her children are very hard on their trouses (slidin' down the
banesters and such). And young Miss Gowdy is onexperienced yet in
mendin', so the patches won't show. And Sister Moss had got forty-seven
cents for the job, and brung it all, every cent of it, with the
exception of three cents she kep out to buy peppermint drops with. She
has the colic fearful, and peppermint sometimes quells it.

Young Miss Gowdy wuz kep at home by some new, important business
(twins). But she sent thirty-two cents, every cent of money she could
rake and scrape, and that she had scrimped out of the money her husband
had gin her for a woosted dress. She had sot her heart on havin' a
ruffle round the bottom (he didn't give her enough for a overshirt),
but she concluded to make it plain, and sent the ruffle money.

And young Sister Serena Nott had picked geese for her sister, who
married a farmer up in Zoar. She had picked ten geese at two cents
apiece, and Serena that tender-hearted that it wuz like pickin' the
feathers offen her own back.

[Illustration: "SHE HAD PICKED TEN GEESE AT TWO CENTS APIECE."]

And then she is very timid, and skairt easy, and she owned up that while
the pickin' of the geese almost broke her heart, the pickin' of the
ganders almost skairt her to death. They wuz very high headed and
warlike, and though she put a stockin' over their heads, they would lift
'em right up, stockin' and all, and hiss, and act, and she said she
picked 'em at what seemed to her to be at the resk of her life.

But she loved the meetin' house, so she grin and bore it, as the sayin'
is, and she brung the hull of her hard earned money, and handed it over
to the treasurer, and everybody that is at all educated knows that twice
ten is twenty. She brung twenty cents.

Sister Grimshaw had, and she owned it right out and out, got four
dollars and fifty-three cents by sellin' butter on the sly. She had took
it out of the butter tub when Brother Grimshaw's back wuz turned, and
sold it to the neighbors for money at odd times through the year, and
besides gettin' her a dress cap (for which she wuz fairly sufferin'),
she gin the hull to the meetin' house.

There wuz quite dubersome looks all round the room when she handed in
the money and went right out, for she had a errent to the store.

And Sister Gowdy spoke up and said she didn't exactly like to use money
got in that way.

But Sister Lanfear sprunted up, and brung Jacob right into the argument,
and the Isrealites who borrowed jewelry of the Egyptians, and then she
brung up other old Bible characters, and held 'em up before us.

But still we some on us felt dubersome. And then another sister spoke up
and said the hull property belonged to Sister Grimshaw, every mite of
it, for he wuzn't worth a cent when he married her--she wuz the widder
Bettenger, and had a fine property. And Grimshaw hadn't begun to earn
what he had spent sense (he drinks). So, sez she, it all belongs to
Sister Grimshaw, by right.

Then the sisters all begin to look less dubersome. But I sez:

"Why don't she come out openly and take the money she wants for her own
use, and for church work, and charity?"

"Because he is so hard with her," sez Sister Lanfear, "and tears round
so, and cusses, and commits so much wickedness. He is willin' she should
dress well--wants her to--and live well. But he don't want her to spend
a cent on the meetin' house. He is a atheist, and he hain't willin' she
should help on the Cause of religeon. And if he knows of her givin'
any to the Cause, he makes the awfulest fuss, scolds, and swears, and
threatens her, so's she has been made sick by it, time and agin."

"Wall," sez I, "what business is it to him what she does with her own
money and her own property?"

I said this out full and square. But I confess that I did feel a little
dubersome in my own mind. I felt that she ort to have took it more
openly.

And Sister Grimshaw's sister Amelia, who lives with her (onmarried and
older than Sister Grimshaw, though it hain't spozed to be the case, for
she has hopes yet, and her age is kep). She had been and contoggled
three days and a half for Miss Elder Minkley, and got fifty cents a day
for contogglin'.

She had fixed over the waists of two old dresses, and contoggled a
old dress skirt so's it looked most as well as new. Amelia is a good
contoggler and a good Christian. And I shouldn't be surprised any day to
see her snatched away by some widower or bachelder of proper age. She
would be willin', so it is spozed.

Wall, Sister Henn kinder relented at the last, and brung two pairs of
fowls, all picked, and tied up by their legs. And we thought it wuz
kinder funny and providential that one Henn should bring four more
of'em.

But we wuz tickled, for we knew we could sell 'em to the grocer man at
Jonesville for upwerds of a dollar bill.

[Illustration: "SUBMIT TEWKSBURY DID BRING THAT PLATE."]

And Submit Tewksbury, what should that good little creeter bring, and we
couldn't any of us hardly believe our eyes at first, and think she could
part with it, but she did bring _that plate_. That pink edged, chiny
plate, with gilt sprigs, that she had used as a memorial of Samuel
Danker for so many years. Sot it up on the supper table and wept in
front of it.

Wall, she knew old china like that would bring a fancy price, and she
hadn't a cent of money she could bring, and she wanted to do her full
part towerds helpin' the meetin' house along--so she tore up her
memorial, a-weepin' on it for hours, so we spozed, and offered it up, a
burnt chiny offerin' to the Lord.

Wall, I am safe to say, that nothin' that had took place that day had
begun to affect us like that.

To see that good little creeter lookin' pale and considerble wan, hand
in that plate and never groan over it, nor nothin', not out loud she
didn't, but we spozed she kep up a silent groanin' inside of her, for we
all knew the feelin' she felt for the plate.

It affected all on us fearfully.

But the treasurer took it, and thanked her almost warmly, and Submit
merely sez, when she wuz thanked: "Oh, you are entirely welcome to it,
and I hope it will fetch a good price, so's to help the cause along."

And then she tried to smile a little mite. But I declare that smile wuz
more pitiful than tears would have been.

Everybody has seen smiles that seemed made up, more than half, of unshed
tears, and withered hopes, and disappointed dreams, etc., etc.

Submit's smile wuz of that variety, one of the very curiusest of 'em,
too. Wall, she gin, I guess, about two of 'em, and then she went and sot
down.



CHAPTER XXVII.


And now I am goin' to relate the very singulerist thing that ever
happened in Jonesville, or the world--although it is eppisodin' to tell
on it now, and also a-gettin' ahead of my story, and hitchin', as you
may say, my cart in front of my horse. But it has got to be told and I
don't know but I may as well tell it now as any time.

Mebby you won't believe it. I don't know as I should myself, if it wuz
told to me, that is, if it come through two or three. But any way it is
the livin' truth.

That very night as Submit Tewksbury sat alone at her supper table,
a-lookin' at that vacent spot on the table-cloth opposite to her, where
the plate laid for Samuel Danher had set for over twenty years, she
heard a knock at the door, and she got up hasty and wiped away her tears
and opened the door. A man stood there in the cold a-lookin' into the
warm cosy little room. He didn't say nothin', he acted strange. He gin
Submit a look that pierced clear to her heart (so they say). A look
that had in it the crystallized love and longin' of twenty years of
faithfulness and heart hunger and homesickness. It wuz a strange look.

Submit's heart begun to flutter, and her face grew red and then white,
and she sez in a little fine tremblin' voice,

"Who be you?"

And he sez,

"I am Samuel Danker."

And then they say she fainted dead away, and fell over the rockin'
chair, he not bein' near enough to ketch her.

And he brung her to on a burnt feather that fell out of the chair
cushion when she fell. There wuz a small hole in it, so they say, and
the feather oozed out.

I don't tell this for truth, I only say that _they say_ thus and so.

[Illustration: "I AM SAMUEL DANKER."]

But as to Samuel's return, that I can swear to, and so can Josiah. And
that they wuz married that  very night of his return, that too can be
swore to. A old minister who lived next door to Submit--superanuated,
but life enough in him to marry 'em safe and sound, a-performin' the
ceremony.

It made a great stir in Jonesville, almost enormus.

But they wuz married safe enough, and happy as two gambolin' lambs, so
they say. Any way Submit looks ten years younger than she did, and I
don't know but more. I don't know but she looks eleven or twelve years
younger, and Samuel, why they say it is a perfect sight to see how happy
he looks, and how he has renewed his age.

The hull affair wuz very pleasin' to the Jonesvillians. Why there wuzn't
more'n one or two villians but what wuz fairly delighted by it, and they
wuz spozed to be envius.

And I drew severel morals from it, and drew 'em quite a good ways too,
over both religous and seckuler grounds.

One of the seekuler ones wuz drawed from her not settin' the table for
him that night, for the first time for twenty years, givin' away the
plate, and settin' on (with tears) only a stun chiny one for herself.
How true it is that if a female woman keeps dressed up slick, piles of
extra good cookin' on hand, and her house oncommon clean, and she sets
down in a rockin' chair, lookin' down the road for company.

[Illustration: "THEY DON'T COME!"] _They don't come!_

But let her on a cold mornin' leave her dishes onwashed, and her floors
onswept, and put on her husband's old coat over her meanest dress, and
go out (at his urgent request) to help him pick up apples before the
frost spiles 'em. She a-layin' out to cook up some vittles to put on to
her empty shelves when she goes into the house, she not a-dreamin' of
company at that time of day.

_They come!_

Another moral and a more religeus one. When folks set alone sheddin'
tears on their empty hands, that seem to 'em to be emptied of all
hope and happiness forever. Like es not some Divine Compensation is
a-standin' right on the door steps, ready to enter in and dwell with
'em.

Also that when Submit Tewksbury thought she had gin away for conscience'
sake, her dearest treasure, she had a dearer one gin to her--Samuel
Danker by name.

[Illustration: "THEY COME."]

Also I drew other ones of various sizes, needless to recapitulate, for
time is hastenin', and I have eppisoded too fur, and to resoom, and take
up agin on my finger the thread of my discourse, that  I dropped in the
Methodist meetin' house at Jonesville, in front of the treasurer.

Wall, Submit brought the plate.

Sister Nash brought twenty-three cents all in pennys, tied up in the
corner of a old handkercif. She is dretful poor, but she had picked up
these here and there doin' little jobs for folks.

And we hadn't hardly the heart to take 'em, nor the heart to refuse
takin' 'em, she wuz so set on givin' 'em. And it wuz jest so with Mahala
Crane, Joe Cranes'es widder.

She, too, is poor, but a Christian, if there ever wuz one. She had made
five pair of overhawls for the clothin' store in Loontown, for which she
had received the princely revenue of fifty cents.

She handed the money over to the treasurer, and we wuz all on us
extremely worked upon and wrought up to see her do it, for she did it
with such a cheerful air. And her poor old calico dress she had on wuz
so thin and wore out, and her dingy alpaca shawl wuz thin to mendin',
and all darned in spots. We all felt that Mahala had ort to took the
money to get her a new dress.

[Illustration: "SISTER ARVILLY LANFRAR, CANVASSIN' FOR A BOOK."]

But we dasted none on us to say so to her. I  wouldn't have been the one to
tell her that for a dollar bill, she seemed to be so happy a-givin' her
part towerds the fair, and for the good of the meetin' house she loved.

Wall, Sister Meachim had earned two dollars above her wages--she is a
millinner by perswasion, and works at a millinner's shop in Jonesville.
She had earned the two dollars by stayin' and workin' nights after the
day's work wuz done.

And Sister Arvilly Lanfear had earned three dollars and twenty-eight
cents by canvassin' for a book. The name of the book wuz: "The Wild,
Wicked, and Warlike Deeds of Man."

And Arvilly said she had took solid comfort a-sellin' it, though she
had to wade through snow and slush half way up to her knees some of the
time, a-trailin' round from house to house a-takin' orders fer it. She
said she loved to sell a book that wuz full of truth from the front page
to the back bindin'.

As for me I wouldn't gin a cent for the book, and I remember we had
some words when she come to our house with it. I told her plain that I
wouldn't buy no book that belittled my companion, or tried to--sez I,
"Arvilly, men are _jest_ as good as wimmen and no better, not a mite
better."

And Arvilly didn't like it, but I made it up to her in other ways. I
gin her some lamb's wool yarn for a pair of stockin's most immegictly
afterwerds, and a half bushel of but'nuts. She is dretful fond of
but'nuts.

[Illustration: "OLD MISS BALCH."]

Wall, Sister Shelmadine had sold ten pounds of maple sugar, and brought
the worth on it.

And Sister Henzy brung four dollars and a half, her husband had gin her
for another purpose, but she took it for this, and thought there wuzn't
no harm in it, as she laid out to go without the four dollars and a
halt's worth. It was fine shoes he had gin the money for, and she
calculated to make the old ones do.

And Sister Henzy's mother, old Miss Balch, she is eighty-three years
old, and has inflamatery rheumatiz in her hands, which makes 'em all
swelled up and painful. But Sister Henzy said her mother had knit three
pairs of fringed mittens (the hardest work for her hands she could have
laid holt of, and which must have hurt her fearful). But Miss Henzy said
a neighbor had offered her five dollars fer the three pairs, and so she
felt it wuz her duty to knit 'em, to help the fair along. She is a very
strong Methodist, and loved to forwerd the interests of Zion.

She wuz goin' to give every cent of the money to the meetin' house, so
Sister Henzy said, all but ten cents, that she _had_ to have to get
Pond's Extract with, to bathe her hands. They wuz in a fearful state. We
all felt bad for old Miss Balch, and I don't believe there wuz a woman
there but what gin her some different receipt fer helpin' her hands,
besides sympathy, lots and lots of it, and pity.

Wall, Sister Sypher'ses husband is clost, very clost with her. She don't
have anythin' to give, only her labor, as well off as they be. And now
he wuz so wrapped up in that buzz saw mill business that she wouldn't
have dasted to approach him any way, that is, to ask him for a cent.

Wall, what should that good little creeter do but gin all the money she
had earned and saved durin' the past year or two, and had laid by for
emergincies or bunnets.

She had got over two dollars and seventy-five cents, which she handed
right over to the treasurer of the fair to get materials for fancy work.
When they wuz got she proposed to knit three pairs of men's socks out
of zephyr woosted, and she said she was goin' to try to pick enough
strawberrys to buy a pair of the socks for Deacon Sypher. She said it
would be a comfort for her to do it, for they would be so soft for the
Deacon's feet.

Wall, Sister Gowdy wuz the last one to gin in dress gin to her by her
uncle out to the Ohio. It wuz gin her to mourn for her mother-in-law in.

And what should that good, willin' creeter do but bring that dress and
gin it to the fair to sell.

We hated to take it, we hated to like dogs, for we knew Sister Gowdy
needed it.

But she would make us take it; she said "if her Mother Gowdy wuz alive,
she would say to her,

"Sarah Ann, I'd ruther not be mourned for in bombazeen than to have the
dear old meetin' house in Jonesville go to destruction. Sell the dress
and mourn fer me in a black calico."

_That_ Sister Gowdy said would be, she knew, what Mother Gowdy would say
to her if she wuz alive.

And we couldn't dispute Sarah Ann, for we all knew that old Miss Gowdy
worked for the meetin' house as long as she could work for anything.
She loved the Methodist meetin' house better than she loved husband or
children, though she wuz a good wife and mother. She died with cramps,
and her last request wuz to have this hymn sung to her funeral:

  [Illustration: "I LOVE THY KINGDOM, LORD."]

  "I love thy kingdom, Lord,
  The house of thine abode,
  The church our dear Redeemer bought
  With His most precious blood."

The quire all loved Mother Gowdy, and sung it accordin' to her wishes,
and broke down, I well remember, at the third verse--

  "For her my tears shall fall,
  For her my prayers ascend,
  For her my toil and life be given,
  Till life and toil shall end."

The quire broke down, and the minister himself shed tears to think how
she had carried out her belief all her life, and died with the thought
of the church she loved on her heart and its name on her lips.

Wall, the dress would sell at the least calculation for eight dollars;
the storekeeper had offered that, but Sarah Ann hoped it would bring ten
to the fair.

It wuz a cross to Sarah Ann, so we could see, for she had loved Mother
Gowdy dretful well, and loved the uncle who had gin it to her, and she
hadn't a nice black dress to her back. But she said she hadn't lived
with Mother Gowdy twenty years for nothin', and see how she would always
sacrifice anything and everything but principle for the good of the
meetin' house.

Sister Gowdy is a good-hearted woman, and we all on us honored her for
this act of hern, though we felt it wuz almost too much for her to do
it.

Wall, Sister Gowdy wuz the last one to gin in her testimony, and havin'
got through relatin' our experiences we proceeded to business and
paperin'.



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.





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Samantha among the Brethren — Volume 7" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.