was not the case, then cases might be brought before the court for its
decision that had never occurred.

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

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

Now, for this reason, and for the further reason that it is a matter of
immense importance that we guard against despotism, I oppose changing
the _personnel_ of the General Conference without my Annual Conference
has a right to vote upon it, and it is voted upon. Despotism is a
suitable term. A General Conference may become a despot, and just as
soon as it goes outside of its legitimate province, then it usurps, and