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 tinbox, and I laid the subject before him strong and eloquent, jest thewants and needs of the meetin' house, and jest how hard we femalesisters wuz a-workin', and jest how much we needed some money to buy ouringregiencies with for the fair. 

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

But he laid 'em careful in the box, and then pulled out his oldpocket-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 atleast I said some words to him, and gin him a middlin' clear idee ofhow I felt on the subject. 

Why, the colt wuz more mine than his in the first place, and I didn'twant a cent of money for myself, but only wanted it for the good of theMethodist meetin' house, which he ort to be full as interested in as Iwuz. 

Yes, I gin him a pretty lucid idee of what my feelin's wuz on thesubject--and spozed mebby I had convinced him. I wuz a-standin' with myback to him, a-ironin' a shirt for him, when I finished up my pieceof mind. And thought more'n as likely as not he'd break down and berepentent, 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 aawful sight. Jest look at the widder's mit. "

I turned right round and looked at him, holdin' my flat-iron in my righthand, 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 aboutso much by Christians to this day. Most probable it wuz a odd one, Idare persume to say she had lost the mate to it. It specilly mentionsthat there wuzn't but one on 'em. And jest see how much that is talkedover, and praised up clear down the ages, to this day. It couldn't havebeen 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 commentatersagree that you must use your own judgment. Mite! What sense is there inthat? 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 cuteremark, 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 thestove, solemn, and took up another, solemn, and went to ironin' on hisshirt collar agin with solemnety and deep earnest. "No, " Josiah Allencontinued, "there hain't no sense in that--but mit! there you havesense. All wimmen wear mits; they love 'em. She most probable had a goodpair, and lost one on 'em, and then give the other to the church. I tellyou it takes men to translate the Bible, they have such a realizin'sense of the weaknesses of wimmen, and how necessary it is to translateit in such a way as to show up them weaknesses, and quell her down, andmake her know her place, make her know that man is her superior in everyway, 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 haughtyand over bearin' a-crossin' as I ever see in my life, and looked uphaughtily at the stove-pipe hole in the ceilin', and resoomed, "But, as I wuz sayin' about her mit, the widder's, you know. That isjest 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 thatwuz 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 ironyone I keep by me--and I keep dretful ironikle ones to use in cases ofnecessity. 

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

"Yes, some man without any doubt, advised her, told her that some otherwidder would lose one of hern, and give hers to the meetin' house, jestthe mate to hern. That is the way I look at it, " sez he "and I mean tomention that view of mine on this subject the very next time they takeup 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, andburnin' indignation in my eys, and sez I:

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

But I gin up from that minute the idea of gettin' anything out of JosiahAllen for the fair. But I had some money of my own that I had got bysellin' three pounds of geese feathers and a bushel of dried apples, every feather picked by me, and every quarter of apple pared and peeledand strung and dried by me. It all come to upwerds of seven dollars, andI took every cent of it the next day out of my under bureau draw andcarried 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 theirmoney, told jest how they come by it. 

Sister Moss had seated three pairs of children's trouses for young MissGowdy, her children are very hard on their trouses (slidin' down thebanesters and such). And young Miss Gowdy is onexperienced yet inmendin', so the patches won't show. And Sister Moss had got forty-sevencents for the job, and brung it all, every cent of it, with theexception of three cents she kep out to buy peppermint drops with. Shehas 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 couldrake and scrape, and that she had scrimped out of the money her husbandhad gin her for a woosted dress. She had sot her heart on havin' aruffle 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, whomarried a farmer up in Zoar. She had picked ten geese at two centsapiece, and Serena that tender-hearted that it wuz like pickin' thefeathers 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 whilethe pickin' of the geese almost broke her heart, the pickin' of theganders almost skairt her to death. They wuz very high headed andwarlike, 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 shepicked '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 overto the treasurer, and everybody that is at all educated knows that twiceten is twenty. She brung twenty cents. 

Sister Grimshaw had, and she owned it right out and out, got fourdollars and fifty-three cents by sellin' butter on the sly. She had tookit out of the butter tub when Brother Grimshaw's back wuz turned, andsold it to the neighbors for money at odd times through the year, andbesides 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 inthe 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 moneygot 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 shebrung up other old Bible characters, and held 'em up before us. 

But still we some on us felt dubersome. And then another sister spoke upand said the hull property belonged to Sister Grimshaw, every mite ofit, for he wuzn't worth a cent when he married her--she wuz the widderBettenger, and had a fine property. And Grimshaw hadn't begun to earnwhat he had spent sense (he drinks). So, sez she, it all belongs toSister 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 ownuse, and for church work, and charity?"

"Because he is so hard with her, " sez Sister Lanfear, "and tears roundso, and cusses, and commits so much wickedness. He is willin' she shoulddress well--wants her to--and live well. But he don't want her to spenda cent on the meetin' house. He is a atheist, and he hain't willin' sheshould 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, andthreatens 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 ownmoney and her own property?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Submit Tewksbury, what should that good little creeter bring, and wecouldn't any of us hardly believe our eyes at first, and think she couldpart with it, but she did bring _that plate_. That pink edged, chinyplate, with gilt sprigs, that she had used as a memorial of SamuelDanker for so many years. Sot it up on the supper table and wept infront of it. 

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

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

To see that good little creeter lookin' pale and considerble wan, handin that plate and never groan over it, nor nothin', not out loud shedidn't, but we spozed she kep up a silent groanin' inside of her, for weall 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 Submitmerely 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 wuzmore pitiful than tears would have been. 

Everybody has seen smiles that seemed made up, more than half, of unshedtears, 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 sotdown. 

CHAPTER XXVII. 

And now I am goin' to relate the very singulerist thing that everhappened in Jonesville, or the world--although it is eppisodin' to tellon it now, and also a-gettin' ahead of my story, and hitchin', as youmay say, my cart in front of my horse. But it has got to be told and Idon'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 wuztold to me, that is, if it come through two or three. But any way it isthe 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, wherethe plate laid for Samuel Danher had set for over twenty years, sheheard a knock at the door, and she got up hasty and wiped away her tearsand opened the door. A man stood there in the cold a-lookin' into thewarm cosy little room. He didn't say nothin', he acted strange. He ginSubmit a look that pierced clear to her heart (so they say). A lookthat had in it the crystallized love and longin' of twenty years offaithfulness 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 chaircushion when she fell. There wuz a small hole in it, so they say, andthe 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. Andthat they wuz married that very night of his return, that too can beswore to. A old minister who lived next door to Submit--superanuated, but life enough in him to marry 'em safe and sound, a-performin' theceremony. 

It made a great stir in Jonesville, almost enormus. 

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

The hull affair wuz very pleasin' to the Jonesvillians. Why there wuzn'tmore'n one or two villians but what wuz fairly delighted by it, and theywuz 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 forhim that night, for the first time for twenty years, givin' away theplate, 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 ofextra good cookin' on hand, and her house oncommon clean, and she setsdown 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 floorsonswept, and put on her husband's old coat over her meanest dress, andgo out (at his urgent request) to help him pick up apples before thefrost spiles 'em. She a-layin' out to cook up some vittles to put on toher empty shelves when she goes into the house, she not a-dreamin' ofcompany 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 allhope and happiness forever. Like es not some Divine Compensation isa-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--SamuelDanker by name. 

[Illustration: "THEY COME. "]

Also I drew other ones of various sizes, needless to recapitulate, fortime is hastenin', and I have eppisoded too fur, and to resoom, and takeup agin on my finger the thread of my discourse, that I dropped in theMethodist 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 thecorner of a old handkercif. She is dretful poor, but she had picked upthese here and there doin' little jobs for folks. 

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

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

She handed the money over to the treasurer, and we wuz all on usextremely worked upon and wrought up to see her do it, for she did itwith such a cheerful air. And her poor old calico dress she had on wuzso 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 themoney 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 totell her that for a dollar bill, she seemed to be so happy a-givin' herpart 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 amillinner by perswasion, and works at a millinner's shop in Jonesville. She had earned the two dollars by stayin' and workin' nights after theday's work wuz done. 

And Sister Arvilly Lanfear had earned three dollars and twenty-eightcents 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 shehad to wade through snow and slush half way up to her knees some of thetime, a-trailin' round from house to house a-takin' orders fer it. Shesaid she loved to sell a book that wuz full of truth from the front pageto the back bindin'. 

As for me I wouldn't gin a cent for the book, and I remember we hadsome words when she come to our house with it. I told her plain that Iwouldn'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 mitebetter. "

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

[Illustration: "OLD MISS BALCH. "]

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

And Sister Henzy brung four dollars and a half, her husband had gin herfor another purpose, but she took it for this, and thought there wuzn'tno harm in it, as she laid out to go without the four dollars and ahalt's worth. It was fine shoes he had gin the money for, and shecalculated to make the old ones do. 

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

She wuz goin' to give every cent of the money to the meetin' house, soSister Henzy said, all but ten cents, that she _had_ to have to getPond's Extract with, to bathe her hands. They wuz in a fearful state. Weall felt bad for old Miss Balch, and I don't believe there wuz a womanthere 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'thave anythin' to give, only her labor, as well off as they be. And nowhe wuz so wrapped up in that buzz saw mill business that she wouldn'thave 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 shehad earned and saved durin' the past year or two, and had laid by foremergincies or bunnets. 

She had got over two dollars and seventy-five cents, which she handedright 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 outof zephyr woosted, and she said she was goin' to try to pick enoughstrawberrys to buy a pair of the socks for Deacon Sypher. She said itwould be a comfort for her to do it, for they would be so soft for theDeacon's feet. 

Wall, Sister Gowdy wuz the last one to gin in dress gin to her by heruncle 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 andgin it to the fair to sell. 

We hated to take it, we hated to like dogs, for we knew Sister Gowdyneeded 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 thedear old meetin' house in Jonesville go to destruction. Sell the dressand mourn fer me in a black calico. "

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

And we couldn't dispute Sarah Ann, for we all knew that old Miss Gowdyworked for the meetin' house as long as she could work for anything. She loved the Methodist meetin' house better than she loved husband orchildren, 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 howshe had carried out her belief all her life, and died with the thoughtof 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 tento the fair. 

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

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

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

CHAPTER XXVIII. 

Sister Sylvester Bobbet and I had been voted on es the ones bestqualified to lead off in the arjeous and hazerdous enterprize. 

And though we deeply felt the honor they wuz a-heapin' on to us, yetes it hes been, time and agin, in other high places in the land, if ithadn't been fer duty that wuz a-grippin' holt of us, we would gladlyhave shirked out of it and gin the honor to some humble but worthyconstituent. 

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 onus, Sister Sylvester Bobbet and I, had giddy and dizzy spells right onthe ground, let alone bein' perched up on barells, a-liftin' our arms upfur, 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 forme, nor Sister Sylvester Bobbet to wave her nor them off, or shirk outof 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 everanimated two wimmen's breasts, Sister Sylvester Bobbet and I graspedholt of the length of paper, one on each end on it, Sister ArvillyLanfear and Miss Henzy a-holdin' it up in the middle like Aaron and Hura-holdin' up Moses'ses arms. We advanced and boldly mounted up onto ourtwo barells, Miss Gowdy and Sister Sypher a-holdin' two chairs stiddyfor us to mount up on. 

Every eye in the meetin' house wuz on us. We felt nerved up to do ourbest, even if we perished in so doin', and I didn't know some of thetime but we would fall at our two posts. The job wuz so much morewearin' and awful than we had foreboded, and we had foreboded about itday and night for weeks and weeks, every one on us. 

The extreme hite of the ceilin'; the slipperyness and fragility of thelengths of paper; the fearful hite and tottlin'ness of the barells; thedizzeness that swept over us at times, in spite of our marble efforts tobe calm. The dretful achin' and strainin' of our armpits, that bid fairto loosen 'em from their four sockets. The tremenjous responsibilitythat laid onto us to get the paper on smooth and onwrinkled. 

It wuz, takin' it altogether, the most fearful and wearisome hour of myhull life. 

Every female in the room held her breath in deathless anxiety (aboutthirty breaths). And every eye in the room wuz on us (about fifty-nineeyes--Miss Shelmadine hain't got but one workin' eye, the other isglass, though it hain't known, and must be kep). 

Wall, it wuz a-goin' on smooth and onwrinkled--smiles broke out on everyface, 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 ofour meetin' house wuz, as you may say, at the stake, we heard the soundof hurryin' feet, and the door suddenly opened, and in walked JosiahAllen, Deacon Sypher, and Deacon Henzy followed by what seemed to me atthe 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 hadbeen 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 inthe 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 wimmenthat had been stood up there in New York for the last week, couldn'tset, that they wuz too weak and fraguile to set on the Conference. 

And then the hull crowd of men, with smiles and haughty linements, besetJosiah to read it out to us. 

So Josiah Allen, with his face nearly wreathed with a smile, a blissfulsmile, 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 greatand triumphant news all round, up as fur as Zoar, if he had time. 

[Illustration: "THE METHODIST CONFERENCE HAD DECIDED THAT WIMMEN WUZTOO WEAK TO SET. "]

And so he read it out to us, and as we see that thatbreadth 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 wuztoo tender, she was onfitted by Nater, in mind and in body to contendwith such hardship. And they all agreed that it would be puttin' the menin a bad place, and takin' a good deal offen their dignity, if the fairsex had been allowed by them to take such hardships onto 'em. And theysez, 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 "sweettender flowerets, " as is the way of men at such times. But they wuz intoo 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 inJonesville and up as fer as Loontown and Zoar. 

But Sister Arvilly Lanfear, who happened to be a-standin' in the dooras they went off, she said she heard 'em out as fer as the gatea-congratilatin' themselves and the Methodist Meetin' House and thenation on the decesion, for, sez they, "Them angels hain't strong enough to set, and I've known it all thetime. "

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 onanything--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 inand preceding the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Churchof 1888, in regard to the admission of women delegates, the publishershave deemed it desirable to append the six following addresses deliveredon the floor of the Conference during the progress of that discussion. 

The General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church is the highestlegislative body of that denomination. It is composed of delegates, bothministerial and lay, the former being elected by the Annual Conferences, and the latter by Lay Electoral Conferences. The sessions of the GeneralConference are held quadrennially. 

Prior to the session held in May, 1888, in New York City, womendelegates were elected, one each, by the four following Lay ElectoralConferences--namely, The Kansas Conference, The Minnesota Conference, The Pittsburgh Conference, and The Rock River Conference. Protest wasmade against the admission of these delegates on the ground that theadmission of women delegates was not in accord with the constitutionalprovisions of the Church, embodied in what are termed the RestrictiveRules. A special Committee on the Eligibility of Women to Membership inthe General Conference was appointed, consisting of seventeen members, to whom the protest was referred. On May 3d the Committee reportedadversely to the admission of the four women delegates, the reportalleging "that under the Constitution and laws of the Church as they noware, women are not eligible as lay delegates in the General Conference. "From the discussion following this report, and lasting several days, thefollowing six addresses, three in favor of and three against theadmission of the women delegates, are selected and presented, with a fewverbal corrections, as published in the official journal of theConference. 

ADDRESS OF REV. DR. THEODORE L. FLOOD. 

I am in accord, in the main, with Dr. Potts and Dr. Brush in what theyhave said on this question, unless it may be where my friend who lastspoke said that these ladies, these elected delegates to this body, ought to be admitted. My judgment and my conscience before theDiscipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Restrictive Rulesis that these women elected by these Electoral Conferences are in thisGeneral Conference. 

Their names may not have been called when the roll was called, and yetit was distinctly stated by the Bishop presiding that morning that theywould be called, and the challenges presented with their names; andafterward demanded it, the names of these delegates who were notenrolled with the others were called, and the protests were read. Theirnames have been called as members of this body, and they are simply hereas "challenged" members. From that standpoint this question must bediscussed, and any disposition of this case under the circumstances mustbe in this direction. These women delegates must be put out of thisGeneral Conference if they are not granted the rights and privilegesof members here. It is not a question of "admitting" them. Before thisreport, before the bar of history, we stand, and will be called upon tovote and act, and millions of people will hold us responsible, and Idare 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 existsfor the ministry and membership of the Church. The ministry and themembership of the Church do not exist for the government. The world wasmade for man, and not man for the world. That is the fundamental ideain the government of God, as He treats us as human beings. That is thefundamental idea in the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as we are enlisted in the support of that government as ministersand members of the Church. Now under this system of ecclesiasticalgovernment a time came in our history when we submitted a grave questionto the membership of the Church. It was not a question simply ofpetition, asking the membership to send petitions up to the GeneralConference. On the contrary, it was submitting a constitutional questionnot simply to the male members of the Church, for that grand and nobleman of the Methodist Church, Dr. David Sherman of the New EnglandConference, moved himself to strike out the word "male" from the reportof the Committee on Lay Delegation. It came to a vote, and it wasstricken out, two to one in the vote. When that was done, then theGeneral Conference of our Church submitted to the membership of theChurch the question of lay delegation. But back of the question of laydelegation was as grave a question, and that was granting the right ofsuffrage to the women of the Church. The General Conference assumedthe responsibility of giving to the women the right to vote. It may bequestioned this way; it may be explained that way; but the factsabide that the General Conference granted to the women of the Church theright 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 hasoften been said that there are parallels in the government of the UnitedStates corresponding to lines of legislation and legislative action inthe government of the Church--you will find that the right of suffragein the country at the ballot-box has been a gradual growth. One of themost sacred rights that a man, an American citizen, enjoys is the rightto cast a ballot for the man or men he would have legislate for him; andfor no trivial reason can that right, when once granted to the Americancitizen, be taken away from him. Go to the State of Massachusetts, andtrace the history of citizen suffrage, and you find it commenced in thisway: First, a man could vote under the government there who was a memberof the Church. Next, he could vote if he were a freeholder. A littlelater on he could vote if he paid a poll-tax. In the government, andunder the legislation of our Church, first the women were granted theright to vote on the principle of lay delegation, not on the "plan"of lay delegation, but on the "principle" of lay delegation. That wasdecided by Bishop Simpson in the New Hampshire Conference, and by BishopJanes afterward in one of the New York Conferences. On the principleof lay delegation, the women of the Church were granted the right ofsuffrage; presently they appeared in the Quarterly Conference, to voteas class-leaders, stewards, and Sunday-school superintendents; and itcreated a little excitement, a feverish state of feeling in the Church, and the General Conference simply passed a resolution or a ruleinterpreting that action on the part of women claiming this privilegein the Quarterly Conference as being a "right, " and it was continued. Presently, as the right of suffrage of women passed on and grew, theyvoted in the Electoral Conferences, and there was no outcry made againstit. I have yet to hear of any Bishop in the Church, or any presidingelder, or any minister challenging the right of women to vote inElectoral Conferences or Quarterly Conferences; and yet for sixteenyears they have been voting in these bodies; voting to send laymen hereto legislate; to send laymen to the General Conference to elect Bishopsand Editors and Book Agents and Secretaries. They come to where votescount in making up this body; they have been voting sixteen years, andonly now, when the logical result of the right of suffrage that theGeneral Conference gave to women appears and confronts us by womencoming here to vote as delegates, do we rise up and protest. I believethat it is at the wrong time that the protest comes. It should have comewhen the right to vote was granted to women in the Church. It is sixteenyears too late, and as was very wisely said by Dr. Potts, the objectioncomes 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 justafter the war, when the colored people of the South, the freedmen of ourland, unable to take care of themselves, their friends, that had foughtthe battles of the war, in Congress determined that they should beprotected, if no longer by bayonets and cannon, that they shouldbe protected by placing the ballot in their hands, and the ballot wasplaced in the hands of the freedman of the South by the action of theNational Congress, Congress submitting a constitutional amendment to thelegislatures of the States; and when enough of them had voted in favorof it, and the President had signed the bill, it became an amendment tothe Constitution of the United States, granting to the people of theSouth, who had been disfranchised, the right of suffrage. 

Now, what does the right of suffrage do? It carries with it the rightto hold office. Where women have the privileges of voting on the schoolquestion, they are granted the privilege of being school directors, holding the office of superintendents, and the restriction on them stopsat that point under statute law. If you go a little further you willfind that when the freedmen were enfranchised, and they sent men oftheir own color to the House of Representatives, did that body say"stop!" "we protest, you cannot come in because of illegality"? No. Theywere admitted on the face of their credentials because they had firstbeen granted the right of suffrage. When men of their color went to theUnited States Senate and submitted their credentials, they were notprotested against, but they were admitted as members of the UnitedStates Senate on the face of their credentials. And why? Becausethe right of suffrage granted to the freedmen of the South under aconstitutional amendment of the nation, carried with it the right ofthe men whom we fought to free, and did free, in an awful war, to holdoffice in the nation. Now, sir, you must interpret the law somewhat bythe spirit of the times in which you live. That is a mistaken notionto say that you must always go to the men that made the law to get theinterpretation of it. If that were true, would it not always be wisefor legislators to give their affidavits and place on file theirinterpretation of the law they had confirmed, and placed on the statutebooks? There are legal gentlemen in this body who will tell you that itgoes for very little when you come to interpret law. And yet you willfind this to be true, that a law must be interpreted somewhat by thespirit of the time in which you live. Why, twenty years ago, when theGeneral Conference handed the question of lay delegation down to theAnnual Conferences, and the members of our Church, there was not awoman practising law in the Supreme Court of the United States. Go backthrough the history of jurisprudence of this country and in England, andyou will find that it had never been known that a woman practised law inthe Supreme Court of this country or England. But to-day women have beenadmitted to practise law in the Supreme Court of the United States. Noamendment to the Constitution of the United States had to be adoptedin order to secure this privilege for them. But this is true, that thejudges of the Supreme Court, by a more liberal interpretation of theConstitution of the United States, said, "Women may be officers of theSupreme Court, and may practise law there. " The same kind of a spirit, in interpreting the Discipline and the Restrictive Rules of theDiscipline of the Church, will place these women delegates in this bodywhere they have been sent. The same thing is true of the Supreme Courtof Pennsylvania and in the Courts of Philadelphia. There is no way out, as my judgment sees, and as my conscience tells me, since before thegovernment of God man and woman are equally responsible. There is no wayout of this dilemma for this General Conference, but to say that thesewomen delegates shall sit in this body, where they have been sent, andwhere their names have been called. 

Why, take the missionary operations. The Woman's Missionary Society isto-day raising more money and doing more missionary work than the ParentMissionary Society did fifty years ago. And yet men legislate concerningthe missionary operations of women, and give them no voice directly inthis body. 

We bring up the temperance question here against license and in favorof Prohibition, and we pass our resolutions after we have given ourdiscussions, and yet the Methodist Church has the honor of having in theranks of her membership--(Time called. )

ADDRESS OF REV. DR. JAMES M. BUCKLEY. 

Mr. President, while the last speaker was on the floor, a modificationof a passage of Scripture occurred to me, "The enemy cometh in likea flood, but I will lift up a standard against him. " It is somewhatpeculiar that he should begin by making a statement about one of themost honored names in American Methodism, a statement that has beenpublished in the papers, and that nine tenths of this body knew as wellas he did. It must have been intended as a part of his argument, and Iregard it as of as much force as anything he said after it. But inpoint of fact the question does not turn upon the person, but upon theprinciple. I have received an anonymous letter containing the followingamong other things, "Beware how you attack the holy cause of woman. Doyou not know that obstacles to progress are rem-o-o-v-e-d out of theway?" The signature of that letter is ingenious. I cannot tell whetherit was a man or a woman, for it reads as follows, "A Lover of your Souland of Woman. " Now, Mr. President, the only candlestick that ought to beremoved out of its place is the candlestick that contains a candle thatdoes not burn the pure oil of truth. And I believe, sir, that with thebest of intentions the three speakers who have appeared have given usthree chapters in different styles of a work of fiction, and it is myduty to undertake to show where they have slipped. The Apocrypha says, "An eloquent man is known far and near; but a man of understandingdiscerneth where he slippeth. " I have no claim to eloquence; neverpretended to have any; but I have a claim to some knowledge of Methodisthistory, to some ability to state my sentiments, and to be without anyfear of the results, either present or prospective. 

Now, Mr. President, you notice from my friends that if they cannotcommand the judgment of the Conference they propose to say the women arein, and defy us to put them out. I am sorry that my friend did not takein the full significance of that. And they say that everybody who hasa certificate in form is in until he is put out. Why, they do notdiscriminate between ordinary contested cases and a case where theconstitutional point is involved. If these women have a right here, they have had it from the beginning by the Constitution. It is not acontested case as to whether John Smith was voted for by the people whoought to vote for him, or in the right place. Now, they talk of bringingup documents here. I wrote to the Hon. George F. Edmunds, the mostdistinguished member of the United States Senate, and simply put thisquestion, If a certificate of election in the Senate shows anything thatwould prove the person unworthy of a seat, would he be seated pending aninvestigation or not? He did not know what it referred to, and I readit _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, whenthe credentials appear to be perfectly regular, and there is nonotorious and undisputed fact or circumstance against the qualificationsand election of a senator, to admit him at once and settle the questionof his right afterward. But there have been cases in which the Senatedeclined to admit a claimant holding a regular certificate upon theground that enough was known to the Senate to justify its declining toreceive 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 basedupon the pretence that one woman is there now. The certificate showsthat they were women, though as yet no action has been taken in regardto them at all. If they were in, they were in with a constitutionalchallenge. I champion the holy cause of women. I stand here to championtheir cause against their being introduced into this body without theirown sex having had the opportunity of expressing their opinion uponthe subject. I stand here to protect them against being connected withmovements without law or contrary to law, and those who wish to bringthem in and those who say it is the constitution of the man andprejudice (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 ofMrs. Caroline Wright in the _Christian Advocate_, one of our mostdistinguished American Methodist women? She does not wish to see themhere. It is the constitution of the woman in that case, and I am opposedto their being admitted until the general sentiment of the women and themen of our Church have an opportunity of being heard upon it. 

Now, Mr. President, note these facts.... This is not a fact, butmy opinion. I solemnly believe that there was never an hour in theMethodist Episcopal Church when it was in so great danger as it isto-day, not on account of the admission of these women, two of whom Ibelieve to be as competent to sit in judgment on this question as anyman on this floor. That is not the question, as I propose to show. Iassert freely, here and now, if the women are in under the RestrictiveRules, no power ought to put them out. If they are not in under theRestrictive Rules, nothing has been done since, in my judgment, bearingupon it. I am astounded that these brethren fancy that this questionhas no bearing at all on the meaning of that rule. That is a wonderfulthing. But we affirm that when the Church voted to introduce laydelegation, it not only did not intend to introduce women, but it didintend to fill up the whole body with men. That is what we affirm. Ifwe can prove it, it is a tower of help to us. If we cannot prove it, wecannot make out our case. But our contention is, that the Church didnot undertake to put women in, and it did undertake to fill up thecapacities and relations of the body with men. Now, look at it. No mangoes to the dictionary to find the meaning of the word "layman. " Thereis not a man that can find out the meaning of our Restrictive Rules fromthe dictionary. No living man can make out the meaning of a word in theRestrictive Rules from Webster's dictionary. You must get it from thehistory of the Church. Who is the "General Superintendent" by Webster orWorcester? The Methodist Episcopacy is the thing that is protected bythe Restrictive Rules. The dictionary does not tell how the CharteredFund shall be taken care of. Now they talk about laymen. They do notseem, I think, to understand the history of the thing. Some of them donot appear to understand the history of the English language. Why wasthe word "layman" ever introduced? Because there was a separate class ofclergy men in the world, but there was not a class of clergywomen in theworld. If there had been, there would have been a term for laywomen andfor clergywomen. And the word was invented to distinguish the laymenfrom the _clergy_men. Had there been clergywomen, there would have beenlaywomen. The "laity" means all the people, men, women, and children. Awoman is one of the laity, and so is every child in the country or inthe Church one of the laity. But when you speak of man acting as a unithe is a layman, but you never say a laywoman. You say: a woman. AbrahamLincoln said, "All these things are done and suffered, that governmentof the people, for the people, and by the people should not perishfrom the earth. " Now, people, the dictionary says, are men, women, andchildren. Did Abraham Lincoln mean that any women or children can takeany 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, "Theintent of the lawmaker is the law. "

I give them something from one of the greatest lawyers that ever livedto think of awhile--John Selden: "The only honest meaning of any word isthe intent of the man that wrote it. " At the time that the plan of laydelegation was adopted, there was not a single Conference of the Churchon this wide globe, not one that distinguished between the ministry andthe 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 theChurch, the sacraments of the Church, and make no distinction betweenthe ministry and the laity. Let them get up and show that there was everone Church in the world worthy of the name that allowed women to makeits laws. There is not one to-day. Let them name a Church, let them nameone that has allowed women in its law-making body; and yet such is theblinding power of gush that men will say that our fathers all understoodit and proposed to put women in. The fact is, that they only proposed toallow them to put us in. As soon as the General Conference adjourned thewomen made an appeal in a public statement. They were asked to vote forlay 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 itwould not make any difference to them. James Porter, Daniel Curry, Dr. Hodgson (Professor Little thinks he was the greatest of them all) wrotea series of articles in the _Advocate_, and it never occurred to themthat the women could come into the General Conference. Lay delegationwas only admitted by 33 votes. Had there been a change of 33 votes theywould not have come in. Every member of the New York East Conferenceknows that Dr. Curry's influence was so powerful that he could almostget a majority against it. And they know if any one had set up anopposition to it on this ground, the whole Conference would have votedagainst the movement, and that if it had not been for Bishop Ames andBishop Janes, who went to the Wyoming Conference where the majority wasopposed to lay delegation, and by their influence there converted myfriend Olin and others, he knows that if this matter of the women hadbeen 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 ministersthat are ciphers all the time except when they vote for delegates? Areyou going to presume that when the Church has a multitude of members, that it is going to sit here and change, by an interpretation, aRestrictive Rule, or put in what was never in, and never understood tobe in? The Restrictive Rule fills up the ministerial delegates. Everytime you put a woman in, you put a man out. This subject has never comeup here before. The question is this, Do those Restrictive Rules meananything? If they do, you cannot put in anything that the fathers didnot put in. And if you put in women as lawmakers; if you can read thoseRules and put them in there, you can change any one of the RestrictiveRules by a majority of one. And I want to say to you, that if you doit, you will prove to the Methodist Episcopal Church that the soleprotection we have against the caprice of a majority of the GeneralConference is not worth the paper it is written on. All you have to dois to get a majority of the Conference against the Episcopacy, and thenput any interpretation, and then you get a few women admitted, and thisyou call the progress of the age. Mr. Chairman, I believe in progress, and when the Church progresses far enough, it can change this law ina constitutional way. But it has not yet gone far enough. These menbelieve that the Church has never done it, or that it is best. Dr. Floodsaid that they must be brought in in the light of progress. I affirmthat Dr. Flood's arguments all point in that direction--they must beinterpreted in the light of progress. When you do that you have got adespotism. I want to go back to my constituents and say this: I exerciseall the power that our Charter gives me. But at the moment that anythingis proposed, and we put in what the fathers did not have before theireyes, at that moment I stop and say, Thus far, but no farther. Adespotism is a despotism, whether it is a despotism without restraint, the Czar with his wife, the Czar without his wife. You will turn thishouse into a despotism, and you will find it difficult to defendMethodism by its peculiar Constitution before the American people. 

If you want women in, there is another way to bring them in. Send thequestion around as you did for lay delegation. There was only a doubt inthe General Conference of 1868, and yet they had a sense of candor. JohnM'Clintock fought in favor of taking them in. But he said, "I think itbest to send the question around. " True progress is not gained in anyother way. Some prefer a shorter cut. Let me say to you, "He that comethin by the door, " the same hath a right to come in; but he that cometh inanother 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 anonymousletters. And so I have nothing either sensational or startling withwhich to introduce my speech. I shall not speak this morning underany fear of being removed as an obstruction, or of having my futureprospects blasted. It is my privilege, therefore, to speak to you thismorning upon this subject calmly and dispassionately, having no motiveto either suppress or exaggerate the truth. The party who wrote Dr. Buckley, threatening to remove him as an obstruction, must be highlygratified to know that that obstruction has already been removed. Brother Hughey removed the obstruction, extinguished the candle, anddestroyed the candlestick. 

We are to approach this question this morning, to discuss it purely uponits merits. The ground of constitutional law was traversed thoroughlyyesterday morning in the opening speech by Dr. Potts, a speech that, though he did not hear it himself, was heard by this body, and willbe heard through the length and breadth of the Church everywhere. Itremains for us who follow him simply to turn on a few side-lights hereand there, or to give an opportunity of viewing this question from anew point of view. And, first, there is a line of argument that may behelpful to some that has already been presented in part touching theadministration of our law and the interpretation of terms that isworthy, 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 personsclaiming seats are laymen; secondly, whether they have been members ofthe Church for five years consecutively, and are at least twenty-fiveyears of age; and, thirdly, upon whether they have been duly elected. Ifwomen are found to be eligible under the law, they would stand upon thesame plane with men, in this particular, that they must be twenty-fiveyears, etc. "

Now, then, is a woman legally qualified to sit in the General Conferenceas a lay delegate? Is she a layman in the sense of that word in theDiscipline? If she be not in, she cannot be introduced contrary to lawby a mere majority vote of the General Conference. The Doctor sometimeswrites more clearly than he speaks, and it was so in the occasion ofwriting this article. Over against this we have one of (as Dr. Hamiltonwould say) the "subtle insinuations" of the Episcopal Address, whichdeclares that no definition of "layman" settles the question ofeligibility as to any class of persons. For many are classed aslaymen for the purposes of lay representation, and have to do with itofficially as laymen, yet themselves are ineligible as delegates. Well, in this case, we have the Episcopal Board over against the editor. Bothare right and both are wrong. The editor is right when he said of awoman, if she be a lay member her right is clear as that of any dulyelected man. But he is wrong when he denies to her a right to a seat inthis body as a layman. The Episcopal Address is wrong when it saysthat "no definition of the word 'layman' settles the question ofeligibility. " But it is right when it says, "Many are classed as laymenfor purposes of lay representation, and have to do with it officially aslay members who are not themselves eligible as delegates. "

In the practical work of the Church, and in the administration of itslaws, women have been regarded as laymen from the beginning until now. They pay quarterage. If they did not pay quarterage some of our salarieswould be very short. They contribute to our benevolent collections, andif it were not for their contributions, we would not to-day be shoutingover the "Million dollars for Missions. " They pray and testify in ourclass-meetings and prayer-meetings, and but for their presence amongus, many of those meetings would be as silent as the grave. They areamenable to law, and must be tried by the very same process by which menare tried. They are subject to the same penalty. They may be suspended;they may be expelled. In all these respects they have been regarded aslaymen from the beginning. Indeed, we have never recognized more thantwo orders in our Church. We have laymen and ministers. Up to 1872 butone of these orders was represented in this General Conference. ThisGeneral Conference was strictly a clerical organization. But in 1872 wemarked a new epoch in Methodist history, and a new element came intothis body, and has been in all our sessions since that date. The firststep, as has been mentioned here before, was taken in 1868, when thequestion of lay delegation was sent down to the members of the Churchover 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 onthis question. He distinctly stated, if I understood him correctly, and I have not had time to refer to the report of his speech (if Imisinterpret him he will correct me), that when the motion to strikeout 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 madeknown to those in favor of lay delegation, they said they would acceptit then with that interpretation, and the interpretation was that theamendment would let women into the General Conference. 

Now, that being true, all this talk about the idea of the "women comingin" being never entertained until very recently falls to the ground. Itwas present on that occasion. It was understood by those that opposedlay delegation, and that favored it, that if they passed this amendmentand the laymen were allowed to come in, it would open the door to allowwomen 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. Shermanput that on as a "rider, " with a view to defeating the bill, thatimmediately after thinking so I thought it might be the occasion ofsecuring the approval of the principle in the laity of the Church. Thatis all I stated. All the rest of Dr. Leonard's statement is his owninference--a misconstruction of the fact. A. B. Leonard:

I understood Dr. Queal as I stated. I have not had time to refer tothe speech he made. I leave his statement with you, and you have theprivilege of consulting his speech as it is printed this morning, inreference to this matter. It came to my thought very distinctly that theidea of the possibility of women coming in was then lodged in the mindsthat were both in favor of and opposed to lay delegation. 

Now, then, this vote that was taken, in accordance with the order of1868, laid the foundation stone for the introduction of women into thisbody. That sent the question of lay delegation down to be voted on bythe laity of the Church. If the women were not to be recognized as laityhere, 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 thevery foundation principle itself, with what consistency can we disallowthem a place in this General Conference, when by their votes they openedthe way for the laymen coming into this General Conference? Do you notremember that we had a vote previously, and the men only voted, and thatthe lay delegation scheme was defeated, and the _Methodist_, that waspublished in this city, being the organ of the lay delegationists, saidthat "votes ought to be weighed, not counted"? And then the question wassent back to be voted upon by both the men and the women? And let thelaymen of this General Conference remember that they are in this bodyto-day by reason of the votes of the women of the Methodist EpiscopalChurch. In 1880 we went still further. We went into the work ofconstruing pronouns. There had been women in the Quarterly Conferencespreviously to that date; but there was a mist in the air with regardto their legality there. The General Conference by its action did notpropose to admit women to the Quarterly Conferences. It simply proposedto clear away the mist and recognize their legal right to sit in theQuarterly Conference. Being in the Quarterly Conference, and in theDistrict Conference, they have the right to vote on every question thatcomes before such bodies. They vote to license ministers, to recommendministers to Annual Conferences, to recommend local preachers fordeacons' and elders' orders. They vote on sending delegates to our LayElectoral Conferences, and they vote in elections for delegates to LayElectoral Conferences, and they vote in elections for delegates from LayElectoral Conferences to this General Conference. And there are menon this floor to-day that would not be in this at all if they hadnot received the support of women in Lay Electoral Conferences. Now, brethren, let it be remembered that the votes of the women to senddelegates to the Lay Electoral Conferences were never challenged untilthey came here asking for seats. They were good enough to elect laymento this body, but not good enough to take seats with laymen in thisbody. With what consistency can laymen accept seats by the votes of thewomen and then deprive women of their seats? I am surprised at some ofthe "subtle insinuations" of the Episcopacy concerning constitutionallaw. Allow me to say at this point that, having introduced into theQuarterly Conference these women, and having given them a right tovote there, and in the District Conferences, and in the Lay ElectoralConferences, in all honesty we must do one of two things, if we wouldbe consistent, we must go back and take up that old foundation of laydelegation that we laid in 1868, or we must go forward and allow thesewomen 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 theRestrictive Rules, and cannot be changed except in the way prescribedfor altering the Restrictive Rules, then I say that this GeneralConference has again and again been both lawless and revolutionary. Every paragraph of the chapter, known as the Constitution, beginningwith §63, and closing with §69, was put into that Constitution withoutany voice from an Annual Conference of this foot-stool. Not one singleone of them was ever submitted to an Annual Conference; §20, ¶183, stoodfor many years in the Constitution of the Church, but was transferredbodily from that Constitution by the General Conference to the positionit now occupies. You come and tell us to-day that we cannot change theConstitution outside of the Restrictive Rules without going down to theAnnual Conferences; it is too late in the day to say that. We have madetoo much history on that point. The present plan of lay delegation wasnot submitted to the Annual Conferences. Bishop Simpson definitelystated when he reported to the General Conference the result of the voteordered in 1868 that the question simply of the introduction of thelaity into the General Conference was presented to be voted upon by thelaity and by the Annual Conferences, but the "plan" was not submittedto either to be voted upon, and the "plan" for lay delegation by whichthese lay brethren occupy their seats here this morning was made inevery jot and tittle by the General Conference without any reference tothe Annual Conferences at all. 

I want to know, then, by what propriety we come here in this GeneralConference to say that there can be no change of Part I. Of theConstitution outside of the Restrictive Rules. The General Conferencecannot alter our articles of faith, it cannot abolish our Episcopacy; itcannot deprive our members of a right to trial and appeal. These comeunder the Restrictive Rules, and cannot be touched by this body withoutthe consent of the Annual Conferences; but all else has been frombeginning, and is now in the hands of the General Conference. Let it beremembered that this General Conference is a unique body. It is at oncea 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 supremecourt to interpret law. Now, then, in admitting women to our GeneralConference, we are simply construing the Constitution, and not changingthe Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States gives decisionson the construing of the Constitution, and who ever heard of a decisionof the Supreme Court being sent down to be ratified by the StateLegislatures? The Supreme Court of the United States construes theConstitution, without any reference to the State Legislatures, and sowe construe law without any reference to the Annual Conferences. If wetouch the law inside of the Restrictive Rules, we must go down to theAnnual Conferences. Outside we are free to legislate as we may. 

What is the Constitution for? The Constitution is designed simply tolimit the powers of the Legislature. In my own State of Ohio, forillustration, we have an article in our Constitution that forbids ourLegislature to license the liquor traffic, but our legislators give alicense under the guise of taxing, but they cannot give us a licenselaw in form. The Constitution prevents it. There are States that haveConstitutions 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 alimitation of legislative power, and where there is no such limitationthere is no restriction. 

ADDRESS OF REV. DR. ALFRED WHEELER. 

Mr. President, it will be well for us, so far as we have progressed inthis discussion, to see how near and how far we agree. It is admitted bythe friends of the report, or by the committee, that this is a questionof law, and to be decided exclusively upon principles of law. So far asthose who are opposed to the report have spoken, they conceive, as Iunderstand it, that the position taken by the committee is taken bythose who are advocating its adoption. Then we are agreed that it is nota matter of sentiment, it is not a matter of chivalry. There is no placefor knighthood, or any of its laws, or any other of the principles thatdominated the contests of the knights of old. If it were a matter ofknighthood there is not a man on this floor that would deem it necessaryto 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 ofthe Church to a seat in this body than those of us who now, under thecircumstances, oppose their coming in. 

It is not either a matter of progressive legislation regarding thefranchise of colored men, or of anybody else in the country. It is aquestion of law, Methodist law, and Methodist law alone. 

Now, so far as the intention is concerned of those who made the law, Ido not see how those who have kept themselves conversant with thehistory of lay delegation can for a moment claim that it was even themost remote intention of those who introduced lay delegation into theGeneral Conference to bring in the women, and for us to transfer thefield now toward women, in view of their magnificent work in the lastten or fifteen years, back to twenty years, is to commit an anachronismthat would be fatal to all just interpretation of law. 

I myself was in the very first meeting that was ever called to initiatethe movement that at last brought in lay delegation. I voted for it; Iwrote for it; I spoke for it in the General Conference and in the AnnualConferences. I was a member of the first lay committee, or Committee onLay Delegation, that was appointed here by the General Conference in1868. And during all these various processes of discussion, so far as Iknow, the thought was never suggested that under it women would come into represent the laity, nor was it ever suggested that it was desirablethat they should; so that the intention of the law-maker could neverhave embraced this design--the design of bringing women into the GeneralConference. I leave that. 

Now, I claim that the General Conference has no legal authority to admitthem here. We are not an omnipotent body. I know that the Supreme Courtof the United States, in that contest between the Northern Church, orthe Methodist Episcopal Church, and the Church South, decided that theGeneral Conference was the Methodist Episcopal Church. I used thatargument myself upon the Conference floor in 1868, that the GeneralConference 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 theGeneral Conference. The General Conference refused to accept thatendorsement of that Court, or that proposition concerning theprerogatives of this body. And through all the processes that havebeen ordered concerning the introduction of lay delegation thatinterpretation of the constitution of the Church has been repudiated. The Church herself rejected the interpretation that the Supreme Courtplaced upon her constitution, and as a loyal son of the Church Iaccepted her interpretation of her own constitution, so that now I claimthat the General Conference has no authority whatever to change the_personnel_ of the General Conference without the vote of the AnnualConferences. Before it can be done constitutionally, you must obtain theconsent of the brethren of the Annual Conferences, and I am in favor ofthat, and of receiving an affirmative vote on their part. But until thisis done I do not see how they can come in only as we trample the organiclaw of our Church under our feet. And to do this, there is nothing butperil ahead of us. 

A simple body may disregard law with comparative impunity, but anorganic body that is complicated, complex in its nature, will find itsown security in adhering earnestly, strictly, and everlastingly, to thelaw 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 Conferencesmust be secured. Here comes in the decision of the General Conference of1872. I do not need to recite it. But let us bear in mind two facts. Oneis, that this General Conference is a legislative body, and that itis also a judicial body. As a judicial body, it interprets law; asa legislative body, it makes law. The General Conference of 1872interpreted law, and the General Conference may reverse itself withjust as much propriety as a court can reverse itself. And if it bethe judgment of this General Conference that that interpretation wasincorrect, it is perfectly competent for this Conference to say so, andhave its action correspond with its own decision. 

There is another point. The case that was before the General Conferenceof 1876 was a specific case. It was the case of the relation thatlocal preachers sustain to the Church, a particular case. This is theprinciple of all decisions in law, that when a particular case isdecided in general terms, the scope and comprehension of the decisionmust be limited to the particular case itself. And if a court in itsdecision embraces more than was involved in the particular case, it hasno force whatever. And as this was a particular case submitted tothe General Conference, and the decision was in general terms, itcomprehends simply the case that was before it, and cannot be advancedto comprehend more. And the reason of this is very obvious; for if itwas not the case, then cases might be brought before the court for itsdecision that had never occurred. 

There is another point I wish to notice. The General Conference of 1880did not see the effect that legislation would have by admitting womento certain offices. Certain affirmative legislation is also negativelegislation. When saloons are permitted to sell in quantities of onegallon, it forbids to sell in quantities of less than one gallon; whenit says you can sell in quantities of one barrel, it forbids them tosell in quantities of two. When the General Conference of 1880decided that women should be eligible in the Quarterly Conferences assuperintendents of Sunday-schools, class-leaders, and as stewards, bythat very affirmative conclusion, the subject was passed upon abouttheir taking any other position. That, I think, must be regarded assound, and a just interpretation of the law. 

But suppose it is not; the General Conference of 1880 certainly did notunderstand the matter as the General Conference of 1872 did. For if ithad, there would have been no necessity for legislation at all, therewould have been no need for putting in the law as it now stands, that the pronoun "he, " wherever employed, shall not be consideredas prohibiting women from holding the offices of Sunday-schoolSuperintendent, Class Leader, and Steward. 

Now, for this reason, and for the further reason that it is a matter ofimmense importance that we guard against despotism, I oppose changingthe _personnel_ of the General Conference without my Annual Conferencehas a right to vote upon it, and it is voted upon. Despotism is asuitable term. A General Conference may become a despot, and just assoon as it goes outside of its legitimate province, then it usurps, andso far as it usurps, it becomes despotic, and is a despot; and you andI, so far as our Annual Conferences are concerned, do well to regardwith a deep jealousy an infringement upon our organic rights. Theonly safety of the Church is the equipoise that is constituted by therelation 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 sameway that their husbands and brothers are here. 

There is another thought that I wish to suggest. What are thepossibilities with regard to lay delegation, supposing the design ofthose who wish to bring women in without further action is successful?You make lay delegation a farce in this body. The presiding elders andpastors of the Church may act in co-operation, and they can electtheir own wives as delegates to this General Conference, and thuslay delegation comes to be a farce. Some of you may laugh at thissuggestion, but it is an _in posse_, and it may easily be made an _inesse_. It is important to us that the laity should hold the place theyhave by the regulations we have, and they should be changed only to makethem more perfect. 

No body is safe without adherence to law. We may set lightly by law; wemay regard it as a thing to be laid aside at the command of excitementor passion, but the nation that does that is a doomed nation, and theChurch that does that has its history already written. The only safecourse for us to pursue is to pursue the wise, careful, judicious, and conservative--I mean every word--and conservative course we haveheretofore pursued through all our history. When we boast of whatMethodism has done, or what she is going to do, let us remember it isbecause of her firm adherence to law. 

It is with her as it is with the German nation and the Anglo-Saxonrace--everywhere our glory is in our adherence to wise laws, and if wepass 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 besuggestive of some of the marvellous plays, woven into song, which havemade the hearts of the thronging multitudes who have crowded this placeof meeting in the past throb alternately with emotions of hope and fearas to the outcome of the parties involved in plot and counterplot. Thevisitors to this General Conference, seated in their boxes and in thefamily circle, Will say surely these honored men of God who have beencalled 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 GeneralConference, whose names at home are the synonym of chivalrousgoodness--surely all these of rank and talent and authority, whose ableand eloquent words have been ringing through the arches and dome of thistemple of music on the wrong side of the question, are but simply actingthe parts assigned them. In the final scene they will join hands aroundthe eligible women elect, who, in obedience to the call of the laity intheir several Conferences, are in their seats with us, and say, "WhomGod hath joined, let not _male_ put asunder. " My brothers, let usbriefly restate the case. Five noble women of the laymen of theMethodist Episcopal Church have been chosen as delegates to this GeneralConference under the Constitution and by the forms prescribed by thelaws of the Church. As they enter, or attempt to enter, the portals ofthis great assemblage they hear a voice from the platform, in words notto be misunderstood, "Thou shalt not, " and voices from all parts of thehouse take up the prohibitory words, and supplement the voices of theBishops, "Thou shalt not. " And one would think, from the vehementoratory of the resisting delegates of this General Conference, that thefoundations of the Church were in imminent peril by the presence ofthese "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 littlesomething about it, as I was on the skirmish line in the conflict, andin all its battles fought until the day of victory. 

In 1861, to the male members of the Church, was submitted the questionof lay representation. It failed of securing a majority vote. Had itcarried, there would have been plausibility in the argument thisday made against the eligibility of women to seats in this GeneralConference. The evolution of the succeeding eight years lifted woman toa higher appreciation of her position in the Methodist Church, and herrights and privileges became the theme of discussion throughout thebounds of the Church. Among the champions for woman was that magnificentman, that grand old man, Dr. Daniel D. Whedon, who, in discussing thisquestion, said:

"If it is _rights_ they talk of, every competent member of the Church ofChrist, of either sex and of every shade of complexion, has equaloriginal rights. Those rights, they may be assured, when that questioncomes 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 ourwives, sisters, and daughters are all human beings. And that these humanbeings are liable as any other human beings to be oppressed by thestronger sex, and as truly need in self-defence a check upon oppression, the history of all past governments and legislation does most terriblydemonstrate. What is best in the State is not indeed with us thequestion; but never, with our consent, shall the Church of the livingGod disfranchise her who gave to the world its divine Redeemer. Whenthat disfranchisement comes to the debate, may the God of eternalrighteousness give us strength equal to our will to cleave it to theground!"

The General Conference of 1868, after full discussion, submitted thequestion of Lay Representation to a vote of all the members of theChurch, male and female, thus recognizing the women as laymen, asbelonging to the great body of the laity, and as vitally interested inthe government of the Church, and having rights under that government. During the debate on the report of the Committee on the plan forsubmitting the question as in 1861, to the male members, Dr. Shermanmoved to strike out the word "male. " While that motion was underconsideration, Dr. Slicer, of Baltimore, said, "If it were the lastmoment I should spend, and the last articulate sound I should utter, I should speak for the wives, mothers, and daughters of the MethodistEpiscopal Church.... I am for women's rights, sir, _wherever churchprivileges are concerned_. "

Dr. Sherman's motion was carried by a vote of 142 to 70, and thequestion of lay representation was submitted to all the members of theChurch over twenty-one years of age. The General Conference did not askwomen to vote on a proposition that only male members of the Churchshould be represented in the General Conference, and it did not thenenter the thought of any clear-headed man that women were to be deprivedof their rights to a seat in the General Conference. There were a fewnoisy, disorderly brethren who cried out from their seats, "No, no, " butthey were silenced by the presiding Bishop and the indignation of theright thinking, orderly delegates. 

What does the Rev. Dr. David Sherman, the mover of the motion to strikeout the word "male, " now say of the prevailing sentiment on that day ofgreat debate? I have his freshly written words in response to an inquirymade a few weeks ago. On March 21st he made this statement:

"Some of us believed that women were laymen, that the term 'men' in theDiscipline, as elsewhere, often designated not sex, but genus; and thatthose who constituted a main part of many of our churches should have avoice in determining under what government they would live. We believedin the rightful equality of the sexes before the law, and hence thatwomen should have the same right as men to vote and hold office. TheConference of 1868 was a reform body, and it seemed possible to takethese views on a stage; hence the amendment was offered, and carriedwith a rush and heartiness even beyond my expectations.... The latterinterpretation of the Conference making all not members of Conferenceslaymen, fully carried out these views, as they were understood at themoment 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 goback of the interpretation of the supreme court of the Church?"

It is amazing that brethren will stand here to-day and utterly ignorethe decision of our Supreme Court in defining who are laymen. Couldthe utterances of any Court be more definite and clear than those of theGeneral Conference when it said, "The General Conference holds thatin all matters connected with the election of lay delegates the word'laymen' must be understood to include all the members of the Church whoare not members of the Annual Conferences"? This decision must includewomen among the laity of the Church. I know it is said that this meansthe classification of local preachers. We respond that that only appearsfrom the debate. The General Conference was settling a great principlein which the personal rights and privileges of two thirds of themembership of our Church were involved. Surely, our Supreme Court wouldhave made a strange decision had they, in defining laymen, exceptedwomen. Let us see how it would look in cold type had they said, "TheGeneral Conference holds that in all matters connected with the electionof lay delegates the word laymen must be understood to include all themembers of the Annual Conferences, _and who are not women_. " We wouldhave become the laughing-stock of Christendom had we made such anutterance. The Church universal in all ages has always divided itsmembership into two great classes, and two only, the clergy andthe laymen, using the terms laity and laymen synonymously andinterchangeably. See Bingham's "Antiquities, " Blackstone's"Commentaries, " Schaffs "History, " and kindred authorities. It is sheertrifling for sensible males to talk about a distinction between lay_men_and lay_women_. 

Women were made class-leaders, stewards, and Sunday-schoolsuperintendents, and employed in these several capacities long beforethe specific interpretations of the pronouns were made. They were soappointed and employed in Saint Paul's Church in this city during thepastorate of that sainted man, John M'Clintock, in 1860, and could thevoice of that great leader and lover of the Church reach us to day fromthe skies it would be in protest against the views presented in thisdebate by the supporters of the committee's report and its amendment. 

It is a well-established and incontrovertible principle of law that anyelector is eligible to the office for which said elector votes, unlessthere be a _specific enactment discriminating against the elector_. Ourlaw says that a lay delegate shall be twenty-five years of age, and fiveyears a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church. It does not say that adelegate must not be a woman, or must be a man. 

Women are eligible to membership in this General Conference. Women havebeen chosen delegates as provided by law. They are here in their seatsready 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 berevolutionary so to do by a simple vote of this body. It would be aviolation of the guarantees of personal liberty, a holding of thejust rights of the laity of the Church. We cannot exclude them frommembership in the General Conference, except by directing the AnnualConferences to vote on the question of their exclusion. Are we ready tosend that question in that form down to the Annual Conferences for theiraction? I trust that a large majority of this General Conference willsay with emphasis we are not ready for any such action. The women of ourMethodism have a place in the heart of the Church from which they cannotbe dislodged. They are our chief working members. They are at the veryfront of every great movement of the Church at home or abroad. In thespirit of rejoicing consecration our matrons and maids uphold thebanner of our Lord in every conflict with the enemy of virtue andrighteousness. Looking down upon us from these galleries, tier upontier, are the magnificent leaders of the Woman's Foreign and the Woman'sHome Missionary Societies. Our women are at the front of the battle nowwaging against the liquor traffic in our fair land, and they will notcease their warfare until this nation shall be redeemed from the curseof the saloon. God bless all these women of our great conquering Churchof the Redeemer. 

Twenty years ago Bishop Hurst accompanied me on a leisurely tour ofcontinental Europe. In the old city of Nuremberg we wandered amongthe old churches and market-places, where may be seen the marvellousproductions of that evangel of art, Albert Durer. In an old schloss inthat city may be found the diary of Albert Durer, almost four centuriesold. In it you may read as follows: "Master Gebhart, of Antwerp, hasa daughter seventeen years old, and she has illuminated the head of aSaviour for which I gave a florin. It is a marvel that a woman coulddo so much. " Three and a half centuries later Rosa Bonheur hangs hermaster-piece in the chief places of the galleries of the world, andHarriet Hosmer's studio contributes many of the best marbles that adornthe parlors of Europe and America, and no one wonders that a woman cando so much. From that day when Martin Luther, the protesting monk, andCatherine Von Bora, the ex-nun, stood together at the altar and thetwain became one, woman has by her own heroism, by her faith in her sexand in God, who made her, fought a good fight against the organizedselfishness of those who would withhold from her any right or privilegeto which she is entitled, and has lifted herself from slavery andbarbarism to a place by the side of man, where God placed her inparadise, his equal in tact and talent, moving upon the world with herunseen influences, and making our Christian civilization what it isto-day. Let not our Methodism in this her chiefest council say or doought that shall lead the world to conclude that we are retreating fromour advanced position of justice to the laity of the Church. Let usrather strengthen our guarantee of loving protection of every right andprivilege 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 onthe constitutional question here involved. But I had then, and I havenow, 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 themby all lawful and constitutional means to every right and and to everyprivilege enjoyed by men. 

But, sir, notwithstanding this admiration and sympathy, I cannot losesight of the vital question before the General Conference now and here. 

That question is this: Under the Constitution and Restrictive Rules ofthe Methodist Episcopal Church are women eligible as lay delegates inthis General Conference? If they are, then this substitute offered byDr. Moore does them an injustice, because it puts a cloud upon theirright and title to seats upon this floor. If they are not, then thisbody would be in part an unconstitutional body if they are admitted. 

It follows that whoever supports this substitute either wrongs the electladies or violates the Constitution. If they are constitutionally a partof this body, seat them; if they are not, vote down this substitute, andadopt the report of the committee, with the amendment of Dr. Neely, andthen let them in four years hence in the constitutional way. Afterthe most careful study of the vital question in the light of history, ecclesiastical, common, and constitutional law, it is my solemn anddeliberate judgment that women are not eligible as lay delegates in thisbody. 

Facts, records, and testimonials conclusively prove that in 1868, whenthe General Conference submitted the matter of lay delegation to theentire membership of the Church, the idea of women being eligible wasnot the intent. The intent was to bring into the General Conference alarge number of men of business experience, who could render serviceby their knowledge and experience touching the temporal affairs of theChurch. When the principle of admitting lay delegates was voted uponby the laity, this idea, and no other, was intended. When the AnnualConferences voted for the principle and the plan, this and this only wastheir intent. 

When the General Conference, by the constitutional majority, acted infavor of admitting the lay delegates provisionally elected, this idea, and none other, actuated them. It was not the intent then to admitwomen, but to admit men only, and the intent must govern in construing aConstitution. 

Dr. Fisk said Judge Cooley is a high authority on constitutional law. Iadmit it, and am happy to say that I was a student of his over a quarterof a century ago, and ever since then have studied and practisedconstitutional law, and I am not here to stultify my judgment byallowing sentiment and impulse to influence my decision. 

Those opposing the report of the committee, with few exceptions, admitthat it was not the intent and purpose, when the Constitution andRestrictive Rules were amended, to admit women as lay delegates. Theyclaim, however, that times have changed, and now propose to force aconstruction upon the language not intended by the laity, the AnnualConferences, or the General Conference at the time of the amendment. Canthis be done without an utter violation of law? I answer, No. 

In the able address read by Bishop Merrill, containing the views of theBoard of Bishops, he says:

"For the first time in our history several 'elect ladies' appear, regularly certified from Electoral Conferences, as lay delegates to thisbody. In taking the action which necessitates the consideration of thequestion of their eligibility, the Electoral Conferences did not consultthe Bishops as to the law in the case, nor do we understand it to be ourduty to define the law for these Conferences; neither does it appearthat any one is authorized to decide questions of law in them. TheElectoral Conferences simply assumed the lawfulness of this action, being guided, as we are informed, by a declarative resolution of theGeneral Conference of 1872, defining the scope of the word 'laymen, " inanswer to a question touching the classification and rights of ordainedlocal and located ministers. Of course, the language of that resolutionis carried beyond its original design when applied to a subject notbefore the body when it was adopted, and not necessarily involved in thelanguage itself. This also should be understood, that no definition ofthe word 'laymen' settles the question of eligibility as to any classof persons, for many are classed as laymen for the purposes of layrepresentation, and have to do with it officially as laymen, who arethemselves not eligible as delegates. Even laymen who are confessedlyineligible, who are not old enough to be delegates, or have not beenmembers long enough, may be stewards, class-leaders, trustees, localpreachers and exhorters, and, as such, be members of the QuarterlyConference, and vote for delegates to the Electoral Conference withoutthemselves being eligible. 

"The constitutional qualifications for eligibility cannot be modified bya resolution of the General Conference, however sweeping, nor can theoriginal meaning of the language be enlarged. If women were included inthe original constitutional provision for lay delegates, they are hereby constitutional right. If they were not so included, it is beyond thepower of this body to give them membership lawfully, except by theformal amendment of the Constitution, which cannot be effected withoutthe consent of the Annual Conferences. In extending to women the highestspiritual privileges, in recognizing their gifts, and in providing forthem spheres of Christian activity, as well as in advancing them topositions of official responsibility, ours has been a leader of theChurches, and gratefully do we acknowledge the good results shown intheir enlarged usefulness, and in the wonderful developments of theirpower to work for God, which we take as evidences of the divine approvalof the high ground taken. In all reformatory and benevolent enterprises, especially in the Temperance, Missionary, and Sunday-school departmentsof Church-work, their success is marvellous, and challenges our highestadmiration. Happily no question of competency or worthiness is involvedin the question of their eligibility as delegates. Hitherto theassumption underlying the legislation of the Church has been that theywere ineligible to official positions, except by special provision oflaw. In harmony with this assumption, they have been made eligible, by special enactment, of the offices of steward, class-leader, andSunday-school superintendent, and naturally the question arises asto whether the necessity for special legislation, in order to theireligibility to those specified offices, does not indicate similarnecessity for special provision in order to their eligibility asdelegates, and if so it is further to be considered that the offices ofsteward, class-leader, and Sunday-school superintendent may be createdand filled by simple enactments of the General Conference itself; but toenter the General Conference, and form part of the law-making bodyof 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 thatused by Chief Justice Marshall, or that eminent jurist, Cooley, fromwhom I beg leave to quote. Cooley, in his great work on "ConstitutionalLimitations, " says:

"A Constitution is not made to mean one thing at one time, and anotherat some subsequent time, when the circumstances may have changed asperhaps to make a different rule in the case seem desirable. A principalshare of the benefit expected from written Constitutions would belost, if the rules they establish were so flexible as to bend tocircumstances, or be modified by public opinion. 

"The meaning of the Constitution is fixed when it is adopted, and is notdifferent at any subsequent time. "

This same great author says:

"Intent governs. The object of construction applied to a writtenconstitution is to give effect to the intent of the people in adoptingit. In the case of written laws it is the intent of the lawgiver that isto be enforced. 

"But it must not be forgotten in construing our constitutions that inmany particulars they are but the legitimate successors of the greatcharters of English liberty whose provisions declaratory of the rightsof the subject have acquired a well understood meaning which the peoplemust be supposed to have had in view in adopting them. We cannotunderstand these unless we understand their history. 

"It is also a very reasonable rule that a State Constitution shall beunderstood and construed in the light, and by the assistance of thecommon 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 commonlaw shall be construed strictly. "

Here, sir, we have the language of Judge Cooley himself. It is as clearas the noonday's sun, and he utterly repudiates the pernicious doctrinethat the Constitution can grow and develop so as to mean one thing whenit is adopted, and something else at another time. You can never injectanything into a Constitution by construction which was not in it whenadopted. And you are bound, according to all rules of construction, togive it the construction which was intended when adopted. No man ofcommon honesty and common sense dares to assert on this floor that itwas the intent when the Constitution was amended to admit women as laydelegates. It follows inevitably that they are not constitutionallyeligible, and to admit them is to violate the Constitution of theChurch, 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 personfor office carries with it the right to be voted for unless prohibitedby 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 Conferencecan, by resolution or decision, change the Constitution and RestrictiveRules. Grant, if you please, that the General Conference, by its actionin 1880, had power to make women eligible in the Quarterly Conference asstewards and class-leaders, this could not qualify her to become a laydelegate in the law-making body of the Church. The qualifications of laydelegates to this body must inhere in the Constitution and RestrictiveRules, according to their intent and meaning when adopted. It isfundamental law that where general disabilities exist, not simply bystatute, but by common law, the removal of lesser disabilities does notcarry with it the removal of the greater ones. 

Legislation qualifying women to vote in Wyoming and elsewhere had to becoupled also with positive enactments qualifying her to be voted for, otherwise she would have been ineligible to office. This is so, and Idefy 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 fromeach State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six years. No personshall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirtyyears, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shallnot, when elected, be an inhabitant of the State for which he shall bechosen. "

These and no other qualifications are worded or found in theConstitution of the United States touching the qualification ofSenators. Is there a layman on this floor who will dare assert thatunder the Constitution of the United States women are eligible asRepresentatives or Senators? Words of common gender are exclusivelyused as applied to the qualification of Senators. The words persons andcitizens include women the same as they include men. Nevertheless, inthe light of the past, I am bold to assert, that any man who would darestand in the Senate of the United States, and contend that women areeligible to the office of United States Senators, would be regarded bythe 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 thejurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, wherein theyreside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the_privileges_ or _immunities_ of citizens of the United States; nor shallany State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without dueprocess of law, _nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction theequal 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 propertyrights includes corporations. 

The second, that the word person, when it relates to the woman claimingthe right to vote, does not confer upon her that right. 

The language is: No State shall make or enforce any law which shallabridge the privileges or immunities of any citizen of the UnitedStates. Nevertheless, a Republican Circuit Judge held this language didnot entitle Mrs. Minor to vote. A democratic Supreme Court of Missouriheld the same, and the Supreme Court of the United States, in an ableopinion written by men known as the friends of women, conclusivelydemonstrated that these constitutional guarantees did not confer uponwoman the right to vote. Why? Because, from time immemorial, this righthad not obtained in favor of woman, and these words of common gendershould not be so construed as to confer this right, since it was notintended when made to affect their status in this regard.